Hi George, Di you notice this in that page: The RegOpenUserClassesRoot function provides a merged view for processes, such as services, that are dealing with clients other than the interactive user
In http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724899(v=vs.85).aspx it says: Applications running in the security context of the interactively logged-on user do not need to use RegOpenUserClassesRoot. These applications can call the RegOpenKeyEx function to retrieve a merged view of the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT key for the interactive user. I'm not sure if we need to provide support for non-interactive users in the future in wine. But as we are working to solve the problem that applications could not fetch settings stored in his classes correctly. I think it may be enough to regard RegOpenUserClassesRoot with RegOpenKeyEx-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT the same. And when I tried to test the difference of keys listed and not listed in that page as a logged on user, I found that they are treated all the same. All subkeys in hklm are listed if not duplicate with those in hkcu. Hope that helps. 2013/5/17 George Stephanos <gaf.stepha...@gmail.com>: > As we know already from [1], the merge is going to happen according to > certain rules. > The list at the end of the page signifies which subkeys are going to be > *merged* from HKLM\Software\Classes\subkey and HKCU\Software\Classes\subkey > and not simply linked to. > > Now there's a comment on the article that says that list is stored in a key. > That lead me into thinking that the list is dynamic and should be > determined at runtime using that key. However that key doesn't exist on my > Win8 box or the web even. > Should I just assume the list is static and build my tests/code according to > it? Is there something I'm missing? > > [1] - > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724498(v=vs.85).aspx > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:26 AM, George Stephanos <gaf.stepha...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm done. Sorry for the font massacre. They're not changing :| >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Juan Lang <juan.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'll leave it open till tomorrow (my time.) Thanks, >>> --Juan >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Juan Lang <juan.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh, hang on, I just flipped it so you can modify it. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Juan Lang <juan.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think you can add more of a timeline in a response. Will that work? >>>>> --Juan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:40 AM, George Stephanos >>>>> <gaf.stepha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I had responded already but yes I'm a little bit shallow on the >>>>>> timeline details. Alright. >>>>>> Could you give me permission to modify the proposal? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- Regards, Guo Jian
