• 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: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations


  • Subject: Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
  • From: Christopher Nebel <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:33:05 -0700

On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:52 PM, kai wrote:

On 20 Sep 2005, at 03:45, Shane Stanley wrote:

On 20/9/05 12:19 PM, "Dave Lyons" <email@hidden> wrote:

Assuming that I fix "get size of <folder>" to block and wait for the correct answer (never return "missing value"),
what would be the desired behavior for "properties of <folder>", which currently includes "size" and "physical size" properties? (1) Always omit, (2) include if available, or (3) block until available. I hesitate to choose (3), since interactively using "properties of <folder>" from a script editor would suddenly get very slow.

[snip]

Choice (2) is about the worst, IMO -- it's has all the appearance to the
user of an intermittent bug.

I realise that Dave's away until Thursday - but while it occurs to me...
AppleScript version 1.10 (Mac OS Tiger 10.4) introduced a size parameter for Standard Additions' info for command. This specifies whether or not the size of the item should be returned. Don't know if it's practicable but, if a request for a Finder item's properties could be similarly qualified, this approach might help to resolve the quandary.

Not relevant. The reason that parameter was introduced for "info for" is that because "info for" is just a command that returns a record, there's no way to ask for just the information you want. "size" can be problematic (i.e., slow), hence the parameter.


The Finder, however, has a real object model, which means that if you don't want the information, you can not ask for it. The correct answer is (3). (There is, by the way, a heuristic for *not* including properties in the "properties" property, but it doesn't apply here. "Typically, properties that can be derived from other properties are not included, such as the 'reverse' property of a list.")


--Chris Nebel AppleScript and Automator Engineering

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
      • From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
    • RE: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
      • From: Richard Rönnbäck <email@hidden>
    • Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
      • From: kai <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations (From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations (From: kai <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Tip for easy editing of droplets
  • Next by Date: Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
  • Previous by thread: Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
  • Next by thread: Re: How to deal with Asynchronous Finder operations
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread