Preferred way of dll registration

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com> writes:

> I think both 2) and 3) are way better than regsvr.c. It avoids code
> duplication and you can add much more custom registries without a
> single line of C (I'd call it more flexible, but it's more a better
> flexibility/efforts factor). IRegistrar is much simplier than .inf
> parser, so it has fewer builtin features. Most useful things may be
> handled IRegistrar and very simple code in DllRegisterServer
> implementation to pass some string replacements. Using it would also
> require moving atliface.idl to include directory. Its advantage is
> that .rgs files are much cleaner as they represent keys as a tree (see
> dlls/atl/atl.rgs for an example).
>
> I usually use .inf files, but if we'd be considering standardization,
> my vote would go for IRegistrar and I'm surely all for limiting
> regsvr.c use.

Certainly anything is better than regsvr.c files. The ideal solution
would be to be able to generate the registration code with widl, along
the lines of dlldata.c (though we could also have it generate a
.inf/.rgs file if that's easier). It would probably require defining
some sort of magic attributes to add to the headers.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org