Bad. Very bad. The only reason I can think of for barring cookies AND URL rewriting would be is someone was being paranoid about security. AND THEY WANT YOU TO WRITE TO THE USER'S ***REGISTRY***???!!! OK. You get the point. Hopefully there's a better reason and I just can't guess it. First, you're going to need client-side logic. No web server can write directly to a client's registry (fortunately!). You can write this applet in Java or as as ActiveX control. Normally, I avoid ActiveX like the plague, since their security capabilities are nowhere near as good, but that's the point here - to get a Java Applet to do things to the user's registry, you have to have a JNI component to do the actual work, then you have to secure and sign the applet. Actually, I do know of one other possible reason for wanting to use the registry - local storage of user preferences. This sounds like a better idea than it is. Since the key word here is "User", you generally want the preferences to be tied to the user, rather than to the user's machine, since it may decide to die at an inconvenient moment, or the user may want to demonstrate something in someone else's office. Cases like this make it preferable to keep the user preferences on the server, where it's available (and kept backed up!) when and where needed. Also, don't forget that the registry isn't a universal solution. Large amounts of data (Microsoft's guideline is >2Kbytes) should not be stored there, and backup and recovery of data for the registry isn't granular. The exact architecture of the registry differs between from Win9x and Win/NT-2000 Finally, of course, there's always the possibility that someone important has a Macintosh no one knew about. Mac's don't have a registry. Oh yeah, one other thing. The standard NT security rules allow non-administrators to write to the registry, but not to create registry subtrees. This is one reason why almost all NT application setup programs require the app to be installed via an administrative account. [This message has been edited by Tim Holloway (edited July 31, 2001).]
An IDE is no substitute for an Intelligent Developer.
Joined: Jan 22, 2001
Thanx Tim, [Believe me NO Bad Intention] Vikas Singh SCJP[/B]