In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> , Christopher
James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>  wrote:

> But it shouldn't be disabled or removed. It should quit the program.
> Isn't this possible while still allowing the same binary to run under
> both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9?

Oh, sure, if I bloat the code to inifinity all problems of the Mac OS X UI can
be fixed by the application code.  For example it is about 50 lines of code
just to move the damn menus around to match Job's idiotic ideas of how Mac OS
X should look like :-(

> (BTW, has CodeWarrior finally fixed their debugger problems?)

Well, if you call a one to two minute startup of the debugger a fix...
at least it works and they promised to get rid of the slow gdb based crap and
return to the reliable and fast sym format possibly with their own debugger
again in CW Pro 8.  I really hope they will!

> BTW, I had to do some hacking of the application bundle to get it to
> run...it doesn't seem to have a Contents folder, Info.plist, *.app
> extension, or any of the normal application bundle stuff...why?

According to the Apple documentation, the plist should be in the application
resource fork, and that is where it is.  There does not have to be a Contents
folder according to the documentation either (not even for Mach-O applications
- note that POV-Ray is of course a CFM application).  And it does not need an
extension according to any specification either.  In fact, POV-Ray is a
application package created with Apple's own tool.  Why it does not work as
expected under Mac OS X is something Apple has to decide, but I don't want to
waste one of my ADC support incidents on such a trivial problem.  Especially
because Apple promised to provide adequate and complete documentation for the
whole packe/bundle things a long time ago in the Package TechNote (don't
remeber the TN number).  Right now the doc parts are scattered all over and as
you see, mac OS X knowns nothing about the docs.

> After renaming the bundle with the *.app extension, adding the missing
> contents, and moving stuff around a bit, it seems to work fine under Mac
> OS X (aside from a few interface anomalies), though I haven't tested it
> under OS 9.2.

because all documentation and Apple tools creating the packge say it is
neither required nor recommended, but optional.  Make of that what you want...

> Also, it seems like the standard include folder would fit better inside
> the bundle.

this would just make it more difficult to access, which is a bad idea.  And it
would make it next rto impossible to open files in the include folder because
packages and bundles appear as one item that cannot be opened in the open file
dialog.

Of course I am aware how annoying the Mac OS X application start system bugs
are.  For this reason, the next beta will be a plain application again and I
will change the templates folder format so it is user-readable.

    thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message