Bob Sneidar wrote:
> This is a real crappy way to save file info. I like the old
> resource/data fork method Apple used to use. Not sure why
> they got rid of that.
Ironically, for interoperability. :)
But more specifically, for interoperability with NeXT, which was renamed
with a new UI to become OS X.
The dual-fork file system of Mac Classic was AFAIK unique to that OS,
and for all practical purposes died along with it. When converting NexT
into OS X they changed the NeXT file system from UFS to HFS, but also
clearly and loudly marked all resource fork use for deprecation. They
ported the OS-level stuff needed to support it, but not the tools which
might encourage future use.
The res fork was fun and simple, but kills opportunities for
interoperability (hence this thread, though it would be simple enough
for Apple to provide an option to turn off the generation of these ._
files when not desired).
Moreover, the res fork's openness makes it difficult to enforce many
common Unix permission settings, which form a key part of the stronger
security which characterizes Unix-like systems from non-Unix systems.
One line of HyperTalk could destroy a Mac Classic System file's ability
to boot (as I learned from experimentation once I'd made a backup and
had my boot disk handy <g>).
Bundles, as OS X uses today for what used to be resource fork elements,
are much more flexible and take full advantage of all the file system's
metadata and security features.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
