additionalvalues in the registry

BarryStevens

Do you see any problems with me adding another value (non HTTP_) in the additionalvalues in the registry.
Have done it and works for what I need and I haven't noticed an issue but then I haven't exhausted all the functions.

DonBakke

I can't think of any problems. That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea...but since you didn't ask me that question...

DonBakke

You've piqued my curiosity. In what way are you using AdditionalValues for your own purposes? There could be a conflict in the future.

BarryStevens

We have one application different clients, so on our development PCs we attach the tables depending on the data location passed. Desktop application testing it is in the shortcut params, for a mobile app (browser) testing it is in the registry 'datapath' which works as it is running oecgi3 OI9. 'datapath'
It is the mobile app that I am converting to frameworks in OI9 using OECGI4, BUT, because your srp_registry function only will look at WOW , it will not work.
So, I am trying to find someway of passing that value outside of an OI internal setting.
Ok in a live situation as the tables will already be attached.

DonBakke

...because your srp_registry function only will look at WOW , it will not work.

Point of clarification, this isn't an issue with the SRP Registry utility but an issue with OI 9 being 32bit. If you run the SRP Registry utility from OI 10 you would not be limited to the WOW path.

It is the mobile app that I am converting to frameworks in OI9 using OECGI4

Which version of OECGI4 are you using, 32bit or 64bit?

BarryStevens

>>Point of clarification, this isn't an issue with the SRP Registry utility but an issue with OI 9 being 32bit.
Yes, I knew that.

>>Which version of OECGI4 are you using, 32bit or 64bit?
Dont know, thought OECGI4 was only 64bit, verified by most conversions on OI forum have been that OIeCGI3 goes in the WOW registry and OECGI4 goes in the 64bit. Has not seen any distinction made between 32bit and 64bit (but could have missed it of course)

DonBakke

There is a 32-bit version available:

OECGI4 for OpenInsight 9.4

However, this has been made available not because OI 9.4 requires it but because some people still work with 32-bit versions of Windows. The latter is quickly going away and thus I do not expect Revelation Software to continue supporting, much less updating, a 32-bit OECGI4 going forward. However, if you want a OECIG4 that works like OECGI3 (albeit with better support for REST), then you have options.

BarryStevens

>>this has been made available not because OI 9.4 requires it but because some people still work with 32-bit versions of Windows.

Sorry, but I really need to clarify something with you. I am running 64bit windows with 32bit OI9.4

So, therefore what should I be using and what registry?

DonBakke

So, therefore what should I be using and what registry?

I sympathize with the desire for a very straight forward answer to this question, but it isn't as easy as that unfortunately. You have different options and the right one depends on your goals, short and long term.

If you weren't operating under any constraints, my recommendation would be to use the 64bit OECGI4, as that will be the most future proof. However, as you already discovered, this stores its Registry values in a 64bit only path that OI 9 cannot access. The HTTP Framework doesn't care about this, but your code does as you seemed to suggest in your above post.

BarryStevens

Ok, thanks for your help. Will work out way - no problem.
Yes, I was worried about your future use of additionalvalues.

DonBakke

Well, the latest OECGI actually makes it so you can just store an asterisk (*) in the AdditionalValues field and thus all headers will be passed through. Your solution could interfere with this behavior.

BarryStevens

Ah, that explains it, I thought additionalvalues was just something of yours.
I could not figure out how you were setting them up.

DonBakke

No. Everything in the Registry is Revelation.