RE: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
RE: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
- Subject: RE: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
- From: Kevin Elliott <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 08:49:08 -0700
>
BSD is a portable API.
BSD is not an API. It's not even a standard. It's a name for a blob of
similar OSes that work in semi-similar ways. More over, apple does not
claim to be a "BSD OS". It claims to be (and is) based on BSD. Thus the
it's functionality is a superset of BSD and no claim about all techniques
that function on MacOSX should work on BSD OS can be made. As a trivial
example IOKit bears no significant resemblance to any BSD driver model that
I am aware.
>
posix is portable API
Indeed. Where did you read that OSX was posix compliant? Where did you
read that apple was planning on becoming so? In point of fact, apple has
stated numerous times on the darwin dev lists that posix compliance is _NOT_
a goal. However, you are correct, posix is a portable API.
>
Cocoa should be a portable API
I'm afraid Apple disagrees with you, and, as they're the ones that wrote
Cocoa, they get to decide. I personally could not care less if cocoa is
portable. I have no particular desire to write windows software. I want a
great framework for MacOSX. The problems with resource fork destruction is
currently a big gaping hole that keeps cocoa from being a great framework
for OSX.
Moreover, even if I had a strong desire for Cocoa to be a cross platform
framework, the resource fork problem STILL has to be fixed! Being a cross
platform framework means supporting the platform your running on. Anybody
who thinks the majority of Mac users won't have files with resource forks
has their head in the sand. OSX is a great OS, but I've been using the mac
for 10 years. What am I supposed to do with the files I have? Throw them
away? Convert all of them to new apps that don't write resource forks?
What if there is no such app? The reality of this platform is that it's
users _WILL_ have files that contain resource forks and that some of those
resource forks will be important.
ANY application that destroys my important data is broken. Any framework
that fails to correctly handle the realities of the platform it runs upon is
broken as well.
-Kevin Elliott
Jedi Knight Ellke Bagen
CharisMac Engineering
>
----------
>
From: Ondra Cada
>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2002 14:32
>
To: Kirk Kerekes
>
Cc: email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
>
>
On Tuesday, July 2, 2002, at 10:00 , Kirk Kerekes wrote:
>
>
> We are not working on a BSD system here, even though one is buried
>
> underneath. We are working on a HFS+ filesystem that explicitly supports
>
>
> resource forks.
>
>
>
> And that pretty much ends the discussion. When working inside this
>
> filesystem...
>
>
Again, you are wrong.
>
>
BSD is a portable API. posix is portable API. The very same stands for
>
shell scripts. Cocoa should be a portable API, though Apple has messed up
>
OpenStep considerably.
>
>
Therefore, if a filesystem wants to work under it, *IT* has to support
>
what's needed -- not by dirty tricks like the special names, but by a way
>
which can be reconciled with the *STANDARD* techniques of BSD, posix,
>
shell scripts, OpenStep, whatever. If it does not, it's its fault -- in
>
this case, the blame is on the side of HFS+.
>
---
>
Ondra Cada
>
OCSoftware: email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz
>
private email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz/oc
>
_______________________________________________
>
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
>
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.