Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
- Subject: Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
- From: John W Baxter <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:06:37 -0800
At 9:03 -0600 2/7/01, AlterEgo wrote:
>
on 2/7/2001 2:37 AM, John W Baxter at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
> At 17:58 -0600 2/6/01, David Blache wrote:
>
>> Yep - I say bring it on. I would hope these guys are considering moving
>
>> most or all of their stuff to Mac OS X. I'm personally going to try to do
>
>> what I can to port FindFile and other scripting additions to Mac OS X. Now
>
>> is definitely a great time to let scripting addition authors know what
>
>> features you need/want in Mac OS X.
>
>
>
> I know that the terminal window will scare many Mac OS X users (some of
>
> whom SHOULD be scared, but those probably shouldn't use AppleScript
>
> either), but in the case of FindFile, it will be difficult to better the
>
> traditional Unix find command (and particularly the GNU modernization of
>
> it).
>
>
Hmm... But how would a script use the command line? ;) FindFile FBA would
>
be for allowing people to search for files in a script, not in a command
>
line.
The C (or ?) code compiled into the FBA would--if desired--execute the find
command, with parameters as needed and retrieve the output from the
command. This is relatively easy to do in Unix...the command line need not
be used or involved (the Unix shell is just a program which--among other
duties--interprets typed commands and executes other programs as a result).
>
>
> [For many purposes, a FindFile scriptable FBA could probably just convert
>
> its parameters into a call to find and present the results.]
>
>
FindFile doesn't just present the results. It filters the files and formats
>
them into lists or blocks of text or even files, and the number of
>
formatting options will increase as time goes on. I've gotten many requests
>
to add to the functionality of FindFile. If the need is there for such a
>
scripting addition, I'll certainly try to provide it.
Sorry, I meant "present" in the sense of doing whatever filtering and
reformatting needed to follow the find. But the find command does massive
amounts of filtering itself...if I want to find files last accessed on
Sunday, Feb 3, 2001 before 10:00PM, which are owned by a particular user
and have a particular Unix group associated and whose names follow a
pattern, starting at some directory and looking "down" only 2 levels in the
tree, I can (or could, after studying the man page). I can get the result
as full path names (or just as file names).
>
>
It sounds like you are saying that scripters don't need such a solution in
>
Mac OS X. Do you know something I don't? Last time I checked there was no
>
good file search capability available to Mac OS X scripters.
I suspect the FindFile FBA *would* be needed. It might also shrink in size
by delegating the searching to Unix commands (programs).
>
>
> On Mac OS X FindFile FBA will (without forcing itself to run as the admin
>
> user or root, which it certainly shouldn't) be unable to "see" files which
>
> the account running it can't see due to not having suitable directory
>
> permissions. That problem/benefit is already here in Mac OS 9 multiple
>
> users.
>
>
I don't see that as a problem. That's the way it should work.
I agree...it just may come as a surprise to those used to being able to see
everything (except on remote volumes).
--John
--
John Baxter email@hidden Port Ludlow, WA, USA