Re: Uniform Type Identifiers (UTIs)
Re: Uniform Type Identifiers (UTIs)
- Subject: Re: Uniform Type Identifiers (UTIs)
- From: Steve Christensen <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:53:22 -0800
On Jan 4, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Philip Dow wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Shawn Erickson wrote:
On Jan 3, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Philip Dow wrote:
Thanks Shawn and Steve. I thought it might have to do with the
web archive uti if not the uti constants in general. I'm already
weak linking my app and checking for 10.4 before calling other
methods
In general you shouldn't need to check for 10.4 just if the symbol
you want to use exists (non-null).
I'm using 10.4 features all over the app within a variety of
objects while continuing compatibility with 10.3.9. To accomplish
this, rather than check for the existence of a 10.4 specific symbol
whenever I need it, I check NSAppKitVersionNumber as my main
controller inits and then set a user default bool depending on the
value. Once I've done that, the bool value is available from
anywhere with minimal hassle.
You're having to do a runtime check in either case so having a
special boolean doesn't really buy you anything. With a boolean (or
even saving the value returned by NSAppKitVersionNumber), you have to
keep track of the first OS version where a symbol becomes available;
checking for the existence of a particular symbol lets you
automatically handle the case where, say, a symbol becomes available
in 10.4.3 but wasn't available in 10.4.
Also, wrapping these specifics in a few class methods or routines
means that the OS version details are also limited to a few specific
places, rather than scattered all over your code. Bug fixes happen in
the one instance of a wrapper and are automatically available to all
callers.
steve
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden