I'd like to store some additional information along with a document, but I can't use bundles or packages, and I cannot store it inside the document itself.
The application is a text editor, and I'd like it to store code folding and bookmark locations with the document, but obviously this cannot be embedded into the code directly, and I don't want to alter the code with ugly comments.
Can I use NSDocument to store information in the resource fork of a document? If so, how can I do this? Should I directly write to <filename>/..namedfork/rsrc or is there an API available?
First, don't use the resource fork. It's virtually deprecated. Instead, use extended attributes. They can be set programmatically at the BSD level via setxattr and getxattr. Extended attributes are used in many places... for example, in the latest OS X, the resource fork itself is implemented as a special type of extended attributes.
For example, the Cocoa text system automatically adds an extended attribute to a file to specify the encoding.
I thought NSFileManager and NSFileWrapper supported extended attributes since Snow Leopard, but I can't find any documentation :p You can always use the BSD level functions, though.
Does the state need to move with the file if it's copied to another computer? If not, you could do a lot worse than emulating the way Bare Bones handles document state with BBEdit. They store state for all documents in ~/Library/Preferences/com.barebones.bbedit.PreferenceData/Document State.plist.
The resource fork documentation is here. But it contains plenty of suggestions to not use the resource fork.
I have a class on my web site for reading and writing resource forks, which I have never got around to moving to my GitHub repository because, as Yuji points out, they are not really used any more.
I was going to say alias files and web Internet location file are the only places they are used, but I used and tested it on Mac OS X v10.7 (Lion), and they are not even used there any more; they may still be used for custom icons. I didn't test for that exclusively. I will have to see how that affect my NDAlias class on 10.7.
ndresourcefork
Related
I need to rewrite a QuickTime reference movie, making it point to another set of files.
I'm working in Windows environment, so I don't have acces to the QuickTime API, and being the referenced files unaccesible, I can't also use the COM interface to load the movie because it can't resolve the referenced paths.
The documentation in the "QuickTime File Format Specification" says that the 'dref' atom can have a list of 'alis', 'url ' and 'rsrc' data references. In this case I need to parse the 'alis' elements. According to the reference, "Data reference is a Macintosh alias".
So long, I have not been able to see a declaration of the structure or any related information. Do you know the structure of an alias record? Where can I find detailed information about it's structure?
Thank you a lot for your help!
The format is very similar to the sort of alias that you could generate in the Finder by right-clicking an item, and creating an alias to it.
Aside: When the QuickTime format was originally specified, Apple intelligently chose to incorporate a number of other standards and paradigms that were extensively already being used elsewhere in the OS. This is one of the reasons why QT is (or was) able to do really clever things like reference movies. Unfortunately, there's also now a lot of cruft leftover from OS features that are no longer relevant (ie. AppleShare). Back in its heyday, QuickTime was slick, especially compared to its competitors; today, it's vastly underappreciated due to the buggy Windows port, and the relatively low processing power of the desktop systems of its time.
Back ontopic, unfortunately, the format for alias files is not an open/published standard, and there is precious little documentation on the topic on the 'net. There's one really old doc that deconstructs the alias format used in Mac OS Classic. Although the structure used in OS X is very similar, the alias files themselves tend to be much larger, as they contain numerous extra data strings at the end of the file that are not documented in the above-linked documentation.
Also, aliases created in the finder do look a bit different from the ones contained within the dref atom, although I've never run through them bit-by-bit to deduce the actual differences. If you want to take a peek at what those files, and have the OS X Developer Tools installed, you can run
setfile -a a [filename]
on a Finder-generated alias to strip the file of its alias-ness so that you can look at its contents in a hex editor (otherwise, the OS will just redirect you to the linked file - doh!). You can re-set the file's alias attribute, or arbitrarily designate any file as an alias by running
setfile -a A [filename]
Unfortunately, during my experiments, dumping the alis portion of a QT movie's dref atom has never seemed to generate an alias that Mac OS was able to interpret.
Fortunately (or not, as it was in my case), the functions that Mac OS allegedly uses to create/handle aliases are part of a public API called the Alias Manager, which is part of the very-low-level CoreServices framework. If you've got time to delve into this further, you can write some code to experiment with Mac OS's built-in alias-generating and interpreting capabilities.
Unfortunately, if you're dealing with an old/buggy file, you have no way of knowing if the file was actually generated by CoreServices' Alias Manager, or if that framework has changed/evolved/regressed since then. Because it's a closed format, 3rd-party developers who opt to not use the Alias Manager can only take guesses as to the format's "legal" structure.
You can use this Java program to see what is in the header, and extract data (it's a bit old, but may still work). What is more useful, though, is the thorough discussion by the author about the Quicktime header.
But I think you may just be looking for the Apple documentation, currently found here.
My application has a plugin system that allows my users to write their own plugins that get loaded at runtime. Usually this is fine but in some cases two plugins use the same libraries that will cause a collision between those two.
Example:
Plugin A wants to use TouchJSON for working with JSON and thus the creator adds the TouchJSON code to the plugin source and it gets compiled and linked into the plugin binary. Later Plugin B also wants to use that same library and does exactly the same. Now when my app loads these two different plugins it detects this and spits out an warning like this:
Class CJSONScanner is implemented in
both [path_to_plugin_a] and
[path_to_plugin_b]. One of the two
will be used. Which one is undefined.
Since my app just loads plugins and makes sure they conform to a certain protocol I have no control over which plugins are loaded and if two or more use the same library.
As long as both plugins use the exact same version of the library this will probably work but as soon as the API changes in one plugin a bunch of problems will arise.
Is there anything I can do about this?
The bundle loading system provides no mean to pacifically resolve name conflicts. In fact, we're told to ensure ourselves that the problem doesn't happen, rather than what to do if it happens. (Obviously, in your case, that's not possible).
You could file a bug report with this issue.
If this is absolutely critical to your application, you may want to have bundles live in separate processes and use some kind of IPC, possibly NSDistantObject, to pass the data from your program to the plugin hosts. However, I'm fairly sure this is a bag of hurt, so if you don't have very clearly-defined interfaces that allow for distribution into different processes, it might be quite an undertaking.
In a single-process model, the only way to deal with this is to ensure that the shared code (more precisely, the shared Objective-C classes) is loaded once. There are two ways to do this:
Put the shared code in a framework.
Put the shared code in a loadable bundle, and load the bundle when the plug-in is loaded if the relevant classes aren’t already available (check using NSClassFromString()). The client code would also have to use NSClassFromString() rather than referring to classes directly.
Of course, if you aren’t in control of the plug-ins you can’t enforce either of these schemes. The best you can do is provide appropriate guidelines and possibly infrastructure; for instance, in the second case the loading could be handled by the application, perhaps by specifying a class to check for and the name of an embedded bundle to load if it isn’t available in the plug-in’s Info.plist.
Given an application path (or NSBundle to an application, etc), is there a way to easily/efficiently determine what content types that application can open?
My initial attempt was to read the application's Info.plist file and extract the content types listed under the kUTExportedTypeDeclarationsKey key. However, there are some flaws with this approach which I haven't been able to work around.
Not all applications use this key. For example, BBEdit does not, but instead lists a whole bunch of recognized file extensions.
UTIs are case-sensitive. Pages, for example, lists com.apple.iWork.Pages.pages as an exported content type, yet no Pages document actually has that type listed in its content type tree. Documents use com.apple.iwork.pages.pages, which is defined by the iWork quicklook generator (at /Library/QuickLook/iWork.qlgenerator).
In know that with some of the LaunchServices functions (LSCopyApplicationURLsForURL(), LSCopyApplicationForMIMEType(), etc), I can get the applications that can open a file (or a file type), but I'd like to do the inverse. (Perhaps I'll have to resort to parsing the output of lsregister -dump?)
Perhaps a simpler way to phrase the question would be: Given an application, what's the easiest way to find all files that it can open?
Any suggestions?
Take a look at LaunchServices and the provided LSCanRefAcceptItem() API.
It seems using the LSItemContentTypes key is the preferred method post-10.4.
Apple: Document-Based Applications
Any help? Now can get NSSize, duration and its all.
You can do this almost entirely using Spotlight's metadata.
For example, I do the following in one of my apps
MDItemRef fileMetadata=MDItemCreate(NULL,(CFStringRef)eachPath);
NSDictionary *metadataDictionary = (NSDictionary*)MDItemCopyAttributes (fileMetadata,
(CFArrayRef)[NSArray arrayWithObjects:(id)kMDItemPixelHeight,(id)kMDItemPixelWidth,nil]);
This code essentially asks for the pixel width and height for a movie file (to determine if it's the dimension of an HD movie or not is the reason).
The Spotlight Metadata Attributes Reference lists all the available keys for various file types by category. You can probably get the required data this way without doing anything significant, provided that the media type you're examining has a Spotlight plug-in.
This functionality may not be built in (I'm honestly not sure), but I do know of two third-party libraries which can tell you the information you need.
VLCKit, the framework being used by the newest beta versions of VLC for Mac.
libmediainfo, a multi-purpose library that can read practically any bit of information you need out of practically any media file.
I can go into more depth with how to use either of these, but I'd rather only do so if you end up needing me to. Let me know!
I'm writing a new document-based cross-platform chemistry application (Win, Mac, Unix), which saves files in its own format (no standard format exists for this field). I'm trying to decide on a file extension for the saved files. My questions are:
How important is it nowadays to stick to 3 characters?
Where can you check how much this file extension is already used? (Google helps, of course, but it does not tell me how much a given app is popular)
Do I really need to use a file-specific extension? My save format is gzip'ed XML, so I could name it .xml.gz, but I fear it would confuse beginning users (i.e. when you see it, it does not immediately "ring a bell").
Finally, do you have other important guidelines when choosing for your own programs?
PS: I tried to keep the right balance between "giving too little information" and "being too specific to be really useful to others". I'll happily provide more information in comments if the need arises.
FileInfo.com lists a lot of file extensions along with their own estimation of how much it is ued.
I suggest a unique extension (rather then xml.gz) so that the OS can identify the file type to users when looking at a file listing or whatever. 'Ringing a bell' is important, especially if you will have less sophisticated users.
I don't see any need to stick to 3 characters, but I wouldn't go bigger than 5 (I don't suppose I have a real reason for this, other than personal preference).
How important is it nowadays to stick to 3 characters?
It's not unless you have to support older operating systems. All current OSes handle >3 char file extensions without any problems. Think of .html, .config, .resx, and I'm sure there are more.
Where can you check how much this file extension is already used?
check out FileExt.
Do I really need to use a file-specific extension? My save
format is gzip'ed XML, so I could name
it .xml.gz, but I fear it would
confuse beginning users (i.e. when you
see it, it does not immediately "ring
a bell").
Remember that windows (and windows users) associate files with applications by extension, so using something too generic like .xml.gz may cause problems. You are probably better coming up with something that is more specific to your file type or application. Users don't care weather your format is gzipped xml internally, they care about what is in the file. Think about abstraction layers, your users will think of it as a file containing chemistry info not gzipped xml, so .chem is far more appropriate than .xml.gz
Some suggestions of things to thing about:
Obviously, don't clash with anything big - Don't use .doc, .xls, .exe, etc.
Don't clash with anything common in your industry domain that your user demographic is likely to have installed. For example, if you are writing a programming tool, don't use .cs or .cpp. You probably know your domain best, so write a list of all the apps you and your users are likely to have installed, and any of their competitors and avoid them.
Make sure your app includes the options to register and unregister the extension. don't just automatically do it in the installation, make sure it's an option.
Remember unix/linux and Mac are case sensitive, so consider sticking to always all lower case by default.
Remember CD/DVD file naming rules are stricter, so don't use non alpha numeric characters.
Finally, remember that most non-tech users are going to have file extensions turned off, so don't stress about it too much.
There is more info here.
Wikipedia has lists of files extensions here (by type) and here (alphabetical), and also some general information
Depends on the platform, but in general, not very important for newer Operating Systems. Check the documentation for the platforms you're targeting.
I'm not aware of better alternatives to Google. Hopefully someone else has a better suggestion for this one.
Not unless you have some reason to do so. Examples would be "I want to ensure that Windows always opens this program with my app". I'm not sure that your users need to be concerned with the extension anyway. The default configuration on Windows, for example, is to hide extensions for known file types. BUT if you have a compelling reason (such as allowing your program to easily identify files it should be able to handle, for example) then you could use the extension, or you could come up with something else.
I have only ever once written a program where I thought I needed to come up with my own extension. I used my initials. Then later I realized I didn't really need a special extension and reverted to ".xml". However, most extensions seem to be something that seems to mean something. (.doc for documents, etc.) so something meaningful is a good idea if you do need to go this route.
It sure depends on the OSes you want to support, but people have globally moved over the 3-characters extension limit these days: .html is well used for webpages, for example.
Of course, if you go to much longer extensions, people will stop visually recognizing it as a file extension, I think...
Barring your needing to be compatible with a specific OS that you know still has the three-letter limitation, no need to keep it to three characters. It may be useful to have a three-character version of it if you end up supporting those platforms.
The Wikipedia list of file formats is pretty good. Some mime mapping lists will list common extensions associated with those mappings. Ray already mentioned FileInfo.com.
It's a convenience thing; I'd probably go with your own but document the fact that they're just gzipped XML files conforming to a specific DTD and make it easy for users to use .xml.gz instead. Be sure that your software doesn't care about the extension, so that users could even choose their own if they wanted, although I'd tend to avoid encouraging them to by providing a reasonable default.
I'd go for typeability, clarity, uniqueness, and brevity -- in that order. For instance, .config is a lot easier to type than .q2z but it falls down on uniqueness. (I'm not suggesting it for your app; it's an example.) Similarly, .q2z is just a pain. :-) So for instance, .chemstuff is easy to type and probably not in wide use elsewhere. (Again, not a suggestion, just an example.)
Have it as document_name.app_name.xml.gz where document_name and app_name are variables, the latter some easily readable and recognisable short string of your application's title.
Modern systems are quite flexible, and there is absolutely no need to drag the 3-character extensions further along in time with us.
I agree that .xml.gz would confuse users, however keep in mind that modern systems are moving into recognizing files not based on extensions but by probing their headers and even contents instead. In fact, users do not often even see the extensions. For gzipped XML files, a system may decide to first unpack the file stream in memory, then find out it is a literal XML file, then it may take its 'xmlns' as the application identifier. However, such systems are not yet widespread use. In any case, don't make the mistake of only opening files by extension - be smart and raise the bar - do exactly the above to find out if the file can be considered a document for your application.