• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts


  • Subject: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
  • From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:14:23 -0600

On 1/21/2002 4:42 PM, "Neal A. Crocker" <email@hidden> wrote:

> A faceless background application, when called upon by a script, uses its own
> resources (cpu time and memory), rather than the resources of the application
> running the script, to handle the request. This can be a useful feature,
> since it allows a limited sort of parallel processing, but what if many
> scripts are competing for its attention simultaneously? A faceless
> background application creates a processing bottleneck that scripting
> additions/modules don't/woudn't.

On the other hand, if a scripting addition crashes, the application that
called it usually crashes as well. If a scriptable faceless background
application crashes, the app that called it doesn't crash.

...my point being that there are pro's and con's to both solutions, and the
developer should weigh them and decide which format is best for the
particular job.


References: 
 >Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts (From: "Neal A. Crocker" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: [OT] ugly ID
  • Next by Date: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
  • Previous by thread: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts
  • Next by thread: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread