Re: MS-DOS FST? => Resources

[vandry@CAM.ORG (Phillip Vandry)]

toddpw@cco.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:

>You're forgetting something: resources aren't read-only and even data files

I don't see good use for either of these things. To have a program write to
itself would be bad.

>OMF ... I don't think it'll be pretty. OMF also has a lot more overhead per
>"chunk" than resources do. What would (sorta) work for applications is doing

That's why I said it would need to be optimized.

>But that's how resources conceptually work! The only difference is that you

Then that's how they should physically work also!

>I don't know about rewritten, unless the O/S was really hacked to begin with.

Any fd could now refer either to a data fork or to a resource fork. Every
time the os accesses a file by refnum it must check this. Calls like
GetFileInfo, Open, Create, GetRefInfo have to account for them specifically.
There's more to change than is apparent at first.

>>It may be easy for the programmer to use resources: just use, for example,
>>NewWindow2 instead of NewWindow. But if there had been no resources,
>>tons of routines like NewWindow2 wouldn't need to exist. I'm sure
>>resources support code accouts for a considerable fraction of toolbox code.

>I beg to differ. Hopefully one of the Apple dudes will set the record
>straight on this so we don't get into a shouting match about it.

I know. Believe me. I'm rewriting the Menu Manager. Just about every second
call has to take into account the possibility that an icon or title or
item name of whatever might be a resource. And then there's NewMenuBar2,
NewMenu2, SetMItem2, etc..
 ______________________________________________________________________
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Phillip Vandry | Vandry@Cam.Org | Suicide (n.): What to do if Macs   |
|________________|________________|_______________take over the world__|
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~