Nathan Fisher wrote:
>I was just trying to have an app modify its resource fork (using
>app.resourcefork.addresource) but it seems to be silently failing. (yes,
>it's compiled) Didn't this used to work?
Never worked. I had reported this probably before RB 1.0. Even after
repeated inquiries to RS at that time I never got any reasonaly
response why they don't fix it. Lame.
And Will Leshner wrote:
>Nope. You shouldn't (and in some cases can't) modify your app's resource
>fork.
Why don't you leave that to decide for the programmer who may have
a good reason you can not imagine? After all, Nathan is definetely
not a beginner.
Seth Willits wrote:
>It's considered dangerous to do
>it in any language (REALbasic/C++/Objective C) you name it.
Nonsense. It's not dangerous at all as long as you know what
you're doing. And I believe Nathan would know what he's doing.
David Dunham clarified:
>It can't work under OS X. Did "used to" mean under OS 9?
Ah, now that's a totally different thought: Yes, OS X might just
deny this operation entirely because of same safety concerns or
because of the way its memory mapped files work (that is: such
files would be read-only, which would be making modifying the
file impossible).
But under OS 9 this was always possible, and safe, if you did
it right.
Thomas
|