Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
- Subject: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology conflicts
- From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:20:17 -0600
On 1/21/2002 4:42 PM, "Neal A. Crocker" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
I say that scripting additions and faceless background applications
>
as "extentions" of applescript both have their places depending on
>
issues such as which application should be doing the work, whether or
>
not a processing bottleneck is likely and whether an object model
>
needs to be introduced. Scripting modules wouud be far nicer than
>
scripting additions because the script writer could control whether
>
they are used, but they would still have the advantages of scripting
>
additions over faceless background applications. That said, as far
>
as I understand, Apple does discourage (at least mildly) would-be
>
developers of applescript extensions to make faceless background apps
>
rather than scripting additions. (Aside from terminology conflicts,
>
there are, as far as I understand it, some behind-the-scenes issues
>
about the mechanics of scripting additions that potentially allow
>
them to stomp all over each other [in which case, the last one loaded
>
wins] and possibly even applications that excecute scripts.)
I couldn't have said this better myself, Neal. If I implied that I thought
all scripting additions were bad, then I apologize for the confusion. I
feel the same as you about this issue. :)
I'd just like to add to what you have said that I think that more
AppleScript developers should explore scriptable applications as possible
solutions to their programming problems. I know a few of the scripting
additions I have written in the past, for instance, are good candidates for
scriptable applications.
JR