Re: How packages are recognized...
Re: How packages are recognized...
- Subject: Re: How packages are recognized...
- From: "Mark Wagner" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:08:08 -0700
On 8/7/07, Alastair Houghton <email@hidden> wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2007, at 15:47, Andrew Merenbach wrote:
>
> > I know that the OP asked, so Alastair was simply answering him,
> > but, from a philosophical point of view...
> >
> > Does it actually make any sense to set the bundle bit of a bundle
> > when you could simply use a UTI declaration? Bundles that aren't
> > of the default type (.kext, .plugin, .bundle, .app) don't tend to
> > exist on their own, do they? rather, they have an application to
> > which they're attached. Thus might the UTI declaration be a little
> > more effective?
>
> Perhaps the biggest advantage of UTIs over this kind of thing is that
> they aren't specific to HFS+. i.e. If you copy a bundle that has its
> bundle bit set to a disk that isn't using HFS+, it's possible that
> you'll end up with a folder rather than a bundle (I haven't checked,
> but it seems likely). The same wouldn't happen with UTI declarations.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the bundle bit over UTIs is that they
don't depend on which applications you have installed. i.e. if you
copy a bundle of type .xcodeproj to a computer that doesn't have Xcode
installed, it's likely that you'll end up with a folder rather than a
bundle. The same wouldn't happen if the bundle bit had been set.
The obvious conclusion is to do both: declare the UTI as a bundle
type, and set the bundle bit. If there's some way of using a plist
file to indicate the containing folder is a bundle, you should do that
as well.
--
Mark
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden