• Variants (build in Delphi as long as I can remember )
• TValue (new in Delphi 2010)
• TAnyValue (recently added to my library)
• TOmniValue (part of OmniThreadLibrary)
• Bare-bone variant record implementation for comparison.

Here is the code I tested on. It is just a little changed version of Masons. It forces the compiler to include all lines (by calling Writeln on resulting values) and it averages over integers, strings and floating point values. Just integers seemed unfair to me. After all in real life we would use all possible combinations of data. The test also has range and overflow checks turned on.

The results:

Iterations: 10000000

Times are in milliseconds

And here is the test code:

program ValuesTest;
 
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses
  SysUtils,
  rtti,
  diagnostics,
  OtlCommon,
  Cromis.AnyValue;
 
const
  HUNDRED_MILLION = 10000000;
 
type
  TVariableRec = record
  private
    FFLoat: Extended;
    FString: string;
    FInteger: Integer;
    function GetAsFloat: Extended;
    procedure SetAsFloat(const Value: Extended);
    function GetAsInteger: Integer;
    procedure SetAsInteger(const Value: Integer);
    function GetAsString: string;
    procedure SetAsString(const Value: string);
  public
    class operator Implicit(const Value: string): TVariableRec;
    class operator Implicit(const Value: Integer): TVariableRec;
    class operator Implicit(const Value: Extended): TVariableRec;
    class operator Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): string;
    class operator Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): Integer;
    class operator Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): Extended;
    property AsFloat: Extended read GetAsFloat write SetAsFloat;
    property AsString: string read GetAsString write SetAsString;
    property AsInteger: Integer read GetAsInteger write SetAsInteger;
  end;
 
procedure tryTValue;
var
  i: integer;
  j: TValue;
  value1: Integer;
  value2: Extended;
  value3: string;
begin
  for I := 1 to HUNDRED_MILLION do
  begin
    j := I;
    value1 := j.AsInteger;
    j := I / 5;
    value2 := j.AsExtended;
    j := IntToStr(I);
    value3 := j.AsString;
  end;
 
  Writeln(value1);
  Writeln(value2);
  Writeln(value3);
end;
 
procedure tryAnyValue;
var
  i: integer;
  j: TAnyValue;
  value1: Integer;
  value2: Extended;
  value3: string;
begin
  for I := 1 to HUNDRED_MILLION do
  begin
    j := I;
    value1 := j.AsInteger;
    j := I / 5;
    value2 := j.AsFloat;
    j := IntToStr(I);
    value3 := j.AsString;
  end;
 
  Writeln(value1);
  Writeln(value2);
  Writeln(value3);
end;
 
procedure tryOmniValue;
var
  i: integer;
  j: TOmniValue;
  value1: Integer;
  value2: Extended;
  value3: string;
begin
  for I := 1 to HUNDRED_MILLION do
  begin
    j := I;
    value1 := j.AsInteger;
    j := I / 5;
    value2 := j.AsExtended;
    j := IntToStr(I);
    value3 := j.AsString;
  end;
 
  Writeln(value1);
  Writeln(value2);
  Writeln(value3);
end;
 
procedure tryVariants;
var
  i: integer;
  j: variant;
  value1: Integer;
  value2: Extended;
  value3: string;
begin
  for I := 1 to HUNDRED_MILLION do
  begin
    j := I;
    value1 := j;
    j := I / 5;
    value2 := j;
    j := IntToStr(I);
    value3 := j;
  end;
 
  Writeln(value1);
  Writeln(value2);
  Writeln(value3);
end;
 
procedure tryVarRec;
var
  i: integer;
  j: TVariableRec;
  value1: Integer;
  value2: Extended;
  value3: string;
begin
  for I := 1 to HUNDRED_MILLION do
  begin
    j := I;
    value1 := j.AsInteger;
    j := I / 5;
    value2 := j.AsFloat;
    j := IntToStr(I);
    value3 := j.AsString;
  end;
 
  Writeln(value1);
  Writeln(value2);
  Writeln(value3);
end;
 
var
  stopwatch: TStopWatch;
 
{ TVariableRec }
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: Extended): TVariableRec;
begin
  Result.AsFloat := Value;
end;
 
function TVariableRec.GetAsFloat: Extended;
begin
  Result := FFLoat;
end;
 
function TVariableRec.GetAsInteger: Integer;
begin
  Result := FInteger;
end;
 
function TVariableRec.GetAsString: string;
begin
  Result := FString;
end;
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: Integer): TVariableRec;
begin
  Result.AsInteger := Value;
end;
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): Integer;
begin
  Result := Value.AsInteger;
end;
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): Extended;
begin
  Result := Value.AsFloat;
end;
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: string): TVariableRec;
begin
  Result.AsString := Value;
end;
 
class operator TVariableRec.Implicit(const Value: TVariableRec): string;
begin
  Result := Value.AsString;
end;
 
procedure TVariableRec.SetAsFloat(const Value: Extended);
begin
  FFLoat := Value;
end;
 
procedure TVariableRec.SetAsInteger(const Value: Integer);
begin
  FInteger := Value;
end;
 
procedure TVariableRec.SetAsString(const Value: string);
begin
  FString := Value;
end;
 
begin
  try
    stopwatch := TStopWatch.StartNew;
    tryVariants;
    stopwatch.Stop;
    writeln('Variants: ', stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
    stopwatch := TStopWatch.StartNew;
    tryTValue;
    stopwatch.Stop;
    writeln('TValue: ', stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
    stopwatch := TStopWatch.StartNew;
    tryAnyValue;
    stopwatch.Stop;
    writeln('TAnyValue: ', stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
    stopwatch := TStopWatch.StartNew;
    tryOmniValue;
    stopwatch.Stop;
    writeln('TOmniValue: ', stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
    stopwatch := TStopWatch.StartNew;
    tryVarRec;
    stopwatch.Stop;
    writeln('TVariableRec: ', stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
  except
    on E: Exception do
      Writeln(E.ClassName, ': ', E.Message);
  end;
 
  readln;
end.

It is obvious and expected that bare-bone record is the fastest. But Variants are not far behind and in real world the difference is negligible. My TAnyValue and TOmniValue from Primož are on the same level. But in most cases his implementation is faster because I use an interface to store the data in a class (because of my other code that uses interface based IAnyValue) and he stores most of the data as numeric type (only some as interface based class). I could speed up my implementation but I find it fast enough in most cases. And I will take elegance over speed if the difference is small enough. But TValue is slow, to slow probably to be used a lot. They should work on it in the future. It is a shame to throw it away since it brings quite a lot of power with it. I wonder if it is necessary for internal data to be stored as generics array

For those of you who don’t like to use variants or want so more flexibility you can look for TAnyValue (which was inspired upon looking at TOmniValue implementation) or TOmniValue. They both work under older version of Delphi as far as I know (Delphi 2005 and up).

If I missed something or if you know of another “variant” like implementation, please let me know. The purpose of this post is to explore this area as well as possible.

• http://www.cromis.net/blog/2008/07/simple-xml-based-storage/
• http://www.cromis.net/blog/2008/07/simple-xml-based-storage-part-ii/
• http://www.cromis.net/blog/2009/07/simple-xml-based-storage-part-iii/
• http://www.cromis.net/blog/2010/02/what-is-new-in-simplestorage/

I read a blog entry recently about LinqToXML and while I was exploring the possibilities that it has, I wondered. Can something like this be done with Delphi and native code? Now SimpleStorage already enables you to write XML in a very compact and efficient way, but it still lacks some elegance on the more native XML building approach. Ok there is a question why would you even want to write XML code inside the IDE editor? But sometimes it is viable, maybe just a wrapper XML shell for something that gets dynamically injected into it. Nevertheless I was intrigued if it can be done. Primož Gabrijelčič  has done it and blogged about it:

• http://17slon.com/blogs/gabr/2009/04/fluent-xml-1.html
• http://17slon.com/blogs/gabr/2009/04/fluent-xml-2.html

It was a nice display what fluent interfaces approach can do, but I was not happy completely. I was aiming at code that would get rid of the “Here, Back…” functions to navigate in the document, because you don’t need them. You always build your document in one swoop and maybe access single elements latter. I know why they were used in that approach and that is why I think with fluent interfaces alone it is hard to achieve the wanted result. SimpleStorage uses an approach similar to that, but not to full extent. The second reason was I wanted to implement it using SimpleStorage, because my aim is to evolve it to be a great and all around tool for XML and data manipulation.

The goal I wanted to achieve was that the Delphi code written inside IDE would match the actual XML as closely as possible and with as little boilerplate code as possible. This way you get the benefit of seeing the resulting XML before it is even created. Without further delay let me show you the results.

First the XML we are trying to construct.

<Demografija>
  <Males>
    <Janez>Novak</Janez>
    <Darko>Gazvoda</Darko>
    <Mitja>Dežela</Mitja>
    <Tilen>Medved</Tilen>
  </Males>
  <Females>
    <Person Name="Marija">Gorenjska</Person>
    <Person Name="Tanja">Notranjska</Person>
    <Person Name="Maja">Primorska</Person>
    <Person Name="Tadeja">Pomurje</Person>
    <Person Name="Irma">Posočje</Person>
    <Person Name="Marija">Notranjska</Person>
  </Females> 
</Demografija>

And now the code that does it

procedure TfMain.btnExample2Click(Sender: TObject);
var
  MyStorage: ISimpleStorage;
begin
  MyStorage := CreateStorage('Demografija');
 
  CreateBuilder(MyStorage).Construct(
  [
    AddElement('Males',
    [
      AddElement('Janez', 'Novak'),
      AddElement('Darko', 'Gazvoda'),
      AddElement('Mitja', 'Dežela'),
      AddElement('Tilen', 'Medved')
    ]),
    AddElement('Females',
    [
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Marija'], 'Gorenjska'),
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Tanja'], 'Notranjska'),
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Maja'], 'Primorska'),
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Tadeja'], 'Pomurje'),
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Irma'], 'Posočje'),
      AddElement('Person', ['Name', 'Marija'], 'Notranjska')
    ])
  ]);
end;

And for the second example let me show how to inject the actual dynamically generated XML into the given builder template. The target XML is like this

<Books>
  <English>
    <Science>
      <Mathematics Difficulty="High">5</Mathematics>
      <Physics Difficulty="Low">0</Physics>
      <Computers Difficulty="Medium">8</Computers>
      <Engineering Difficulty="Low">4</Engineering>
      <Electoronics Difficulty="High">8</Electoronics>
      <Biology>
        <Microbiology Difficulty="High">4</Microbiology>
        <Undefined Difficulty="Low">3</Undefined>
      </Biology>
    </Science>
    <Musical>
      <Classic>2</Classic>
      <Etno>2</Etno>
      <Pop>8</Pop>
    </Musical>
  </English>
</Books>

And the code that does it looks like this

procedure TfMain.btnExample1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
  MyStorage: ISimpleStorage;
begin
  MyStorage := CreateStorage('Books');
 
  CreateBuilder(MyStorage).Construct(
  [
    AddElement('English',
    [
      AddElement('Science',
      [
        AddElement('Mathematics', ['Difficulty', 'High'], 5),
        AddElement('Physics', ['Difficulty', 'Low'], 0),
        AddElement('Computers', ['Difficulty', 'Medium'], 8),
        AddElement('Engineering', ['Difficulty', 'Low'], 4),
        AddElement('Electoronics', ['Difficulty', 'High'], 8),
        AddElement('Biology',
        [
          AddElement('Microbiology', ['Difficulty', 'High'], 4),
          AddElement('Undefined', ['Difficulty', 'Low'], 3),
          Add(
            procedure(const Element: IElement)
            begin
              // add few elements here
              Element.Append('InsertedNode').AsInteger := 1;
              Element.Append('InsertedNode').AsInteger := 2;
              Element.Append('InsertedNode').AsInteger := 3;
            end
          )
        ])
      ]),
      AddElement('Musical',
      [
        AddElement('Classic', 2),
        AddElement('Etno', 2),
        AddElement('Pop', 8)
      ])
    ])
  ]);
end;

The result is easily readable dont’ you think? I would really like to hear your opinion on the code. Maybe you have a suggestion or idea, or you simply have a comment about how it all sucks The code can already be downloaded from my download page, but be warned, it is still in early development and it will change. It only works in Delphi 2010 (should in 2009) opposed to other parts of SimpleStorage that work in Delphi 2006 and up. Also I use Variants for values for now and that will change. I will replace them with records and implicit operator overloads.

I also made a change in the “Cromis.SimpleStorage.Collection.pas” unit. There is now a new “IDocument” interface which is very simple:

  IDocument = Interface(IInterface)
  ['{0B2F03BD-9929-43A1-A7E8-62B372D2D96C}']
    function GetPath: string;
    function GetData: ISimpleStorage;
    property Data: ISimpleStorage read GetData;
    property Path: string read GetPath;
  end;

Now instead of the collection returning directly ISimpleStorage interface, it returns the IDocument. The interface holds the storage XML and the additional property, the path of the document. This can be important in certain situations. Here I would also like to clarify that for now the collection can only hold XML documents on file system. They cannot be held directly in memory. This is intentional, because in many cases the collections can be huge and there is no way that all those XML documents would fit into memory. It would also be very time consuming to parse and load all XML documents in advance, before even using them.

You can get the new version and demos from the download page.

• Simple XML based storage – Part I.
• Simple XML based storage – Part II.
• Simple XML based storage – Part III.

From then, the framework has matured and I use it in a lot of my software. It has proven invaluable in terms of time savings and ease of XML manipulation. After all I have written it because I was tired of doing the same XML tasks over and over again. Recently, I upgraded it with two new important units . They cover two aspects of XML manipulation:

• Encryption on a document scale
• Working with collection of documents

I also did an upgrade of the core IElement interface. The goal was easier node attributes manipulation. I will show examples of all three improvements here. The new version of SimpleStorage can be found on my download page as always.

Encryption on a document scale

I recently had the need to encrypt whole XML documents. Since I already have SimpleStorage and XTEA encryption algorithm in my library, this was a no brainer. Whole documents can now be encrypted with some very simple code:

  EncryptedStorage('MyVeryStrongKey').SaveToFile(StorageFromFile(OpenDialog.FileName), SaveDialog.FileName);

And decrypted just as easily.

  EncryptedStorage('MyVeryStrongKey').LoadFromFile(OpenDialog.FileName).SaveToFile(SaveDialog.FileName);

I have intentionally wrote this in one line, because I always want to show how compact and powerfull the whole framework is. It tends to minimize tedious code and make your life easier. In real apps this should probably be two lines for easy redability.

  Storage := StorageFromFile(OpenDialog.FileName);
  EncryptedStorage('MyVeryStrongKey').SaveToFile(Storage , SaveDialog.FileName);

You can also encrypt / decrypt directly but you can look for that yourself. The code is obvious.

Easier node attributes manipulation

As I said, I strive to make the code compact and clear and attribute manipulation was one thing, that bugged me from the beginning of SimpleStorage. Everything else was very compact, but if you wanted to manipulate attribute “Language” of node “Book”, for instance, you had to write something like the following code. The first line is setting “Language” attribute of the “Book” node, by first getting the “Book” node and the second is setting the “Language” directly from “Book” node.

  CurrentNode.Get('Book').Attributes.Ensure('Language').AsString := 'English';
  CurrentNode.Attributes.Ensure('Language').AsString := 'English';

Which is ok, but it stand out from other SimpleStorage code. So I added “shortcuts” to the IElement interface. Now you can do the same like this:

  CurrentNode.EnsureAttr('Book', 'Language').AsString := 'English';
  CurrentNode.EnsureAttr('Language').AsString := 'English';

It saves a lot of characters on the long run

Working with collection of documents

Until now, SimpleStorage was great if you wanted to manipulate a single XML document. But what if you have lots of those and you wanted to process all of them. You had to write your own code (which is easy of course, but again repetitive work) and work with each document separately. Well no more. You now have “IDocuments“ interface that enables you to work over collections of XML documents. I will show this on a simple example. This was a real task, I had in front of me a few days ago. I had a bunch of XML documents looking like this:

<Devices>
  <Device ID="002694350026014400780050BF3F5173" InBound="23632" OutBound="13092" />
  <Device ID="002694350026012900880050BF3F5173" InBound="14728" OutBound="41084" />
  <Device ID="002694359925017200280050BF3F5173" InBound="22116" OutBound="61808" />
  <Device ID="002694350026013800980050BF3F5173" InBound="15140" OutBound="54612" />
  <Device ID="002694359725014400580050BF3F5173" InBound="13460" OutBound="34064" />
  <Device ID="002694359925013100880050BF3F5173" InBound="16332" OutBound="47120" />
  <Device ID="002694359625013600380050BF3F5173" InBound="14860" OutBound="47752" />
  <Device ID="002694359625014900680050BF3F5173" InBound="6120" OutBound="10852" />
  <Device ID="002694359925016600480050BF3F5173" InBound="11724" OutBound="46016" />
  <Device ID="002694350026011900980050BF3F5173" InBound="6404" OutBound="13540" />
  <Device ID="002694359925013600780050BF3F5173" InBound="7616" OutBound="10376" />
  <Device ID="002694359525017200080050BF3F5173" InBound="3060" OutBound="9996" />
  <Device ID="002694359925012400380050BF3F5173" InBound="460" OutBound="34084" />
  <Device ID="002694359725010700280050BF3F5173" InBound="8228" OutBound="35664" />
  <Device ID="002694350026012000780050BF3F5173" InBound="4076" OutBound="26664" />
</Devices>

This is a shortened version, but you get the idea. It is an XML that holds the “InBound” and “OutBound” traffic for mobile devices, over the HTTP protocol. In short, it enables me to see how much traffic my application generates for a single device. The shown XML, is a log for a single month of traffic. And in over two years, quite a few of these files accumulated. It would be easy to make a sum of  “InBound” and “OutBound” traffic and  report that for a single device over the complete time span in a traditional way. But lets see how we can do that with SimpleStorage. First let me show how to get all log entries for a single device. All XML logs were stored in “s:\bandwidth” directory.

procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
var
  Documents: IDocuments;
begin
  Documents := CreateCollection('s:\bandwidth', False);
  Documents.Get('//Device[@ID="3FBF5000735108010E1212674B5D036A"]',
    procedure(const Document: string; const Element: IElement; const Data: Pointer)
    begin
      ListBox1.Items.Add(Document + ' - ' + Element.Attributes.Get('InBound').AsString);
    end
  );
end;

Thats it. Simple isn’t it. Try to do the same with classic MS XML and compare the result.  Let me tell you again what I just did in these few lines of code. First I acuired all XML documents in a sinlge directory. Then I enumerated all the documents, but only processed the ones that have a distinct node (based on XPath) in them. Finally I printed some results for the selected nodes. If you dislike the anonymous approach you can also do it with classic callback functions. The interface supports both. the Get function / procedure is overloaded and it returns documents collection or it enumerates nodes over all documents based on XPath.

If you want to filter the collection of documents you have at your disposal you can do it like I have shown in this next example. This is just an example to show you how, it has no real value. In the callback you decide if the document will be included in the result collection or not. Then the code enumerates all documents and prints out a single attribute.

procedure TForm1.Button3Click(Sender: TObject);
var
  Documents: IDocuments;
  Document: ISimpleStorage;
  Element: IElement;
  Subset: IDocuments;
begin
  ListBox1.Clear;
  Randomize;
 
  Documents := CreateCollection('s:\bandwidth', False);
  Subset := Documents.Get('//Device[@ID="3FBF5000735108010E1212674B5D036A"]',
    procedure(const Document: ISimpleStorage; const FileName: string; var Include: Boolean; const Data: Pointer)
    begin
      Include := Random(10) > 5;
    end
  );
 
  for Document in Subset do
  begin
    Element := Document.Get('//Device[@ID="3FBF5000735108010E1212674B5D036A"]');
    ListBox1.Items.Add(Element.GetAttr('InBound').AsString);
  end;
end;

Now finally let me show the real code that helped me sumarize the traffic report. I used a classic callback here for sake of redability.

type
  TDeviceObject = class
    InBound: Int64;
    OutBound: Int64;
  end;
 
procedure TForm1.OnDeviceCallback(const Document: string; const Element: IElement; const Data: Pointer);
var
  DeviceIdx: Integer;
  HashTable: TStringList;
  DeviceObject: TDeviceObject;
begin
  HashTable := TStringList(Data);
  DeviceIdx := HashTable.IndexOf(Element.GetAttr('ID').AsString);
 
  if DeviceIdx = -1 then
    DeviceIdx := HashTable.AddObject(Element.GetAttr('ID').AsString, TDeviceObject.Create);
 
  DeviceObject := TDeviceObject(HashTable.Objects[DeviceIdx]);
  DeviceObject.InBound := DeviceObject.InBound + Element.GetAttr('InBound').AsInteger;
  DeviceObject.OutBound := DeviceObject.OutBound + Element.GetAttr('OutBound').AsInteger;
end;
 
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
  I: Integer;
  HashTable: TStringList;
  Documents: IDocuments;
  OutputData: TStringList;
  DeviceObject: TDeviceObject;
begin
  HashTable := TStringList.Create;
  try
    Documents := CreateCollection('s:\bandwidth', False);
    Documents.Get('//Device', OnDeviceCallback, HashTable);
 
    OutputData := TStringList.Create;
    try
      for I := 0 to HashTable.Count - 1 do
      begin
       DeviceObject := TDeviceObject(HashTable.Objects[I]);
       OutputData.Add(Format('%s,%d,%d', [HashTable[I], DeviceObject.InBound, DeviceObject.OutBound]));
      end;
 
      OutputData.SaveToFile('S:\bandwidth\Bandwidth.txt');
    finally
      OutputData.Free;
    end;
  finally
    HashTable.Free;
  end;
end;

The result is a CSV file ready for excel.

Ok so what did I find out? YM tries to store the profile and archives into the “Program Files (x86)\Yahoo!\Messenger\profiles” folder (I have 64 bit Windows 7). Well Windows VirtualStore kicks in at that moment, redirecting all the data to the “Users\UserName\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\Yahoo!\Messenger\Profile”. I know why MS implemented VirtualStore. User apps have no business writing data to the “Program Files”. But guess what, they do. And a lot of them, even popular apps like YM. And because MS wanted better security and on the same side wanted old apps to continue running, they made the decision about VirtualStore. But I don’t think it was a smart one. Redirecting data to some obscure path, deep into the user profile is not a good idea. Redirecting to a path that has hidden folders in it is even worse idea. People then don’t know what happened with their data and that can lead to data loss or some irrational decision made in panic that also lead to data loss.

Lets take my case for example. Under Windows XP, my archive was written to “Program Files”. After installing Windows 7, I restored to the previous state ,installing YM again. I could see my archived data when I checked if it was there in YM. But from then on all the data was written to the VirtualStore, without me being aware of it. When I restored my backup plan I was missing all the new data recorded after the transition to Windows 7. And I am a developer, so I quickly found that out, when restoring the backup plan. But what about the common user, that has no way of knowing that and resolving such issues. I think a better approach would be:

1. Let the application crash if it tries to write to “Program Files”
2. Explicitly tell the application to work in “Windows XP” compatibility
3. VirtualStore is disabled when applications are run in compatibility mode

Yes, it would be harder for the user in the beginning, but they would quickly learn how to handle legacy apps and application developers would have to fix their applications. And because the message would be clear: “Your app is not working correctly”, a user would be aware of the error instead of having the illusion that all is well.

So how did I solve the problem. I made a NTFS Junction Point. The procedure is simple:

1. I moved the complete archive from “Program Files” and VirtualStore to my actual profile folder: “Users\UserName\AppData\Local\Yahoo\Profiles“
2. I deleted the old archive locations and I also deleted the profile folder in YM “Program Files” directory
3. I opened CMD and typed: mklink /D /J “C:\Program Files (x86)\Yahoo!\Messenger\profiles” “c:\Users\UserName\AppData\Local\Yahoo\Profiles”

That is it. Now YM thinks it is writing and reading data from “Program Files” but instead it is doing it from my user profile folder. I made YM do what it should in the first place and worked around VirtualStore. It is an interesting solution that could come handy in many other cases. And for those of you out there wondering: “Did he use the latest YM?” Yes I installed the latest YM before doing anything else. Version 10 still writes to the “Program Files” and I can’t understand why haven’t they fixed that.

I know many will disagree with my view on this topic, but as I see it, this is how things stand right now