Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
- Subject: Re: Metamorphosax! (revisited)
- From: David Blache <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:56:53 -0600
on 2/7/2001 1:06 PM, John W Baxter (email@hidden) wrote:
>
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).
We were discussing moving FindFile (and other scripting additions)
functionality to Mac OS X - not whether or not FindFile will be better than
the find program. How I choose to implement FindFile functionality
internally is for me to decide, since I am the one writing FindFile FBA; but
thanks for the suggestion. :)
>
>> [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).
Yes, I am aware of the many powerful things that can be done with the find
command. But FindFile isn't the find command. FindFile is a scripting
addition that scripters will call from within a script without
interactivity.
>
> 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).
Yes, that could be a problem; but that's more of an OS usability issue than
anything.
-David