Re: How packages are recognized...
Re: How packages are recognized...
- Subject: Re: How packages are recognized...
- From: Alastair Houghton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:21:36 +0100
On 7 Aug 2007, at 19:08, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 8/7/07, Alastair Houghton <email@hidden> wrote:
Perhaps the biggest advantage of UTIs over this kind of thing is that
they aren't specific to HFS+. i.e. If you copy a bundle that has its
bundle bit set to a disk that isn't using HFS+, it's possible that
you'll end up with a folder rather than a bundle (I haven't checked,
but it seems likely). The same wouldn't happen with UTI
declarations.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the bundle bit over UTIs is that they
don't depend on which applications you have installed. i.e. if you
copy a bundle of type .xcodeproj to a computer that doesn't have Xcode
installed, it's likely that you'll end up with a folder rather than a
bundle. The same wouldn't happen if the bundle bit had been set.
:-D :-D
The obvious conclusion is to do both: declare the UTI as a bundle
type, and set the bundle bit. If there's some way of using a plist
file to indicate the containing folder is a bundle, you should do that
as well.
Indeed.
Kind regards,
Alastair.
--
http://alastairs-place.net
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden