Re: User tool location

[cs283047@condor.stcloud.msus.edu (Curt Dox)]

In article <5Mp5XNPzzhB@meadow.muc.de> schaf@meadow.muc.de (Soenke Behrens) writes:
>	<4hf5mQ200Vpc1Dz5ke@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Subject: User tool location (was Re: Tool 69)
>X-Newsreader: XP v3.0
>Lines: 36
>
>Sure. Apple, Inc. just uses the next number up. Anyone else MUST NOT  
>create system toolsets, that's what user toolsets are for.
>
>I've got a suggestion to make to you programmer types:
>
>  How about we agree on a "standard" location for user toolsets, say
>*:system:usertools ? That way it would not be necessary to violate Apple's
>standards, and we would have a location to search to find certain toolsets
>without having them cluttered all over the HD, or requiring the user
>to have N copies of them for N programs.
>
[ summarized: Soenke offers to keep track of user tool numbers ]
>
>Hmmm ... related note: How about releasing a number of routines
>to make loading and installing a user tool set as well as getting rid
>of it again a snap? The way it seems to be now is load it into memory,
>get a handle on the function table, find a free number to use for it,
>install it. Seems that could be put in one wrapper function :)
>
>Yours
>Soenke
>--
>Decompression sucksssss
>## CrossPoint v3.0 ##

 Yes.. This sounds perfectly reasonable- I agree with the concept, but we
need to start doing this soon.  I would gladly follow this method in
my programming (once I have something written, with tools, to release).

 What will we do with our current situation?  ie: multiple Tool 069's

 Would it be possible to revise those applications and tools in order to
fit with the proposed scheme?  This would only work with software
currently supported by the author however.