Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts
Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts
- Subject: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts
- From: Jon Pugh <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:05:25 -0800
At 2:08 AM -0800 1/26/02, Neal A. Crocker wrote:
>
I propose an alternative, somewhat similar, scripting "module" scheme that would require some work by an adventurous, community-minded osax developer (should I volunteer my own novice services?):
Too complicated. Loading and unloading all the osaxen is very expensive, which is one of the problems with OS X's implementation. They repeat this expensive operation over and over again. In Mac OS 9, et al, this is only done once, at system boot (and at other times if needed) so it doesn't slow everyone down.
Of course, Mac OS X doesn't want an *actual* system table, because of the security restrictions that violates, so applications must load scripting additions if they want them, which means they consent to being violated, I guess.
Leaving the system table full of events isn't really a bad thing. The AE hash is quick and the table isn't huge. Once the terminology is out of the way, the events shouldn't even be noticed.
The real question is, are the occasional terminology conflicts worth all this bother? I don't think I'll bother, for example.
Jon