Hi all windows gurus,
i think this is the place whre i can put a question:
is there any workaround for the 1024 char limit for the
contents of the PATH env variable? In my server (w2k
server) i need to have a lost of things installed (3
different oracle homes, appdev tool, etc) and all of them
uses more of the specified 1024 chars.

Tnaks in advance for your help.
Have a nice life.
Jaime

In message <2e51601c46aa8$3f2006d0$(E-Mail Removed)> of Thu, 15 Jul 2004
13:13:51 in microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin, JaimeP
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Hi all windows gurus,
>i think this is the place whre i can put a question:
>is there any workaround for the 1024 char limit for the
>contents of the PATH env variable? In my server (w2k
>server) i need to have a lost of things installed (3
>different oracle homes, appdev tool, etc) and all of them
>uses more of the specified 1024 chars.
Have you rejected the subst command? subst /? for information.
--
Walter Briscoe

"Walter Briscoe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <2e51601c46aa8$3f2006d0$(E-Mail Removed)> of Thu, 15 Jul 2004
> 13:13:51 in microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin, JaimeP
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >Hi all windows gurus,
> >i think this is the place whre i can put a question:
> >is there any workaround for the 1024 char limit for the
> >contents of the PATH env variable? In my server (w2k
> >server) i need to have a lost of things installed (3
> >different oracle homes, appdev tool, etc) and all of them
> >uses more of the specified 1024 chars.
> Have you rejected the subst command? subst /? for information.
> --
> Walter Briscoe

Additionally, you can create junctions (which are like directory symbolic
links) to some of your longer directories. I use the JUNCTION utility from
www.sysinternals.com. There is also a LINKD utility from Microsoft in the
Win2K resource kit, I believe.

Hi Walter,
thaks for your answer. Now i have to ask you if that
works fine in Windows 2000 Server. Security issues?
Thanks again for your time.
Have a nice life.
Jaime
>Have you rejected the subst command? subst /? for
information.
>--
>Walter Briscoe
>.
>

In message <2e7cc01c46b8e$5c013e90$(E-Mail Removed)> of Fri, 16 Jul 2004
16:41:04 in microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin, anonymous@discussi
ons.microsoft.com writes
>Hi Walter,
>thaks for your answer. Now i have to ask you if that
>works fine in Windows 2000 Server. Security issues?

Jaime,
I have no notion of what works or fails in Windows 2000 Server - I run
Windows 2000 - or of security issues involved with the subst command.
Effectively, it creates another drive letter which is part of a drive
you already have. I would expect it has no additional security
implications assuming that you can prevent attack on the code which
creates the definition. There may be problems with programs which
enumerate drives assuming they are distinct. For example, when I search
for files or folders, the default is to search local harddrives (C;F;W).
F and W are each part of C. Craig Barkhouse's suggestion of junctions is
likely to be better. I leave you to explore as shall I.

However, I wonder if the problem you pose is the correct one.
Why do you need a path of more than 1K bytes? Searching for executables
via such a path is likely to hammer performance.

I use the subst command in two ways:
1) as a shorthand when I am doing intensive work on a particular sub-
directory (and its sub-directories recursively) of a drive.
2) For the situation of a drive whose letter is not fixed.

You can see both in the following list:
C:\) subst
F:\: => C:\wfb\url\ftp\sources.redhat.com\pub\bzip2\v102\bzip2-1.0.2.2
W:\: => C:\watcom

On my XP system, my usual C drive is actually the E drive and W is
E:\watcom. I can, as a result, refer to the same things via drive W on
both systems.
--
Walter Briscoe