Is using .. as parent directory cross platform? - cross-platform

More as a curiosity, if I want to prevent some code from looking at the parent directory (contained in a list of files/directories) and I do something along the lines of (e.g. Perl) next if /^.+$/ to exclude . and .. , is this sufficiently cross-platform? If not, which platforms are different and how might one prevent accessing the parent in that case?

It will work in most modern platforms. (It will also exclude Unix hidden files/directories, but this is probably a good thing given the context.) Windows has a special case at the root of a drive, but it's not so much "different syntax" as "not there in any syntax"; if you have any intention of using platforms such as OpenVMS or Z/OS, it won't work at all.
Note that Perl and Python ship with cross-platform path utilities that you should use instead. I couldn't tell you about PHP or Ruby but I presume both also do so.

Doesn't work in ZX Spectrum. :)
Seriously, pretty much all platforms in current wide use (i.e. MSDOS, Windows, *NIX including Linux) conform to that. Be aware you will also be excluding hidden directories in UNIX-like systems.

Related

Does breezy fully replace bzr, in msys2

The title tells it all:
Does breezy fully replace bzr, at least in msys2?
E.g., by aliasing.
I found little info on this:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/80740
Yes, Breezy is a full replacement for Bazaar. It's derived from the Bazaar codebase, and compatible with the Bazaar command-line interface.
There are a large number of changes to the internal API, but unless you use third-party plugins or use scripts that use the bzrlib API, that should not be relevant to you.
We've also dropped support for a number of older platforms (e.g. Windows '95 and '98). I don't think msys2 was ever explicitly supported as a platform, but we're happy to help fix any issues you may run into. See https://www.breezy-vcs.org/pages/support.html for ways to reach out to us.
You can read more about the rationale for the fork here:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2017q2/076170.html
https://www.jelmer.uk/breezy-intro.html

How can I handle platform-specific modules in Go?

I'm writing a command-line utility in Go that (as part of its operation) needs to get a password from the user. There's a great gopass module for Unix that does this, and I know how to write one for the Windows console. The problem is that the Windows module obviously won't build on *nix, and the *nix version won't build on Windows. Since Go lacks any preprocessor support (as far as I can tell), I have absolutely no idea what the right way to approach this is. I know it's possible, since Go itself must do this for its own libraries, but the tooling I'm used to (conditional imports/preprocessors/etc.) seems to be missing.
Go has build constraints, which can either be specified as comments in a .go file, or as part of the file name.
One set of constraints is for target operating system, so you can have one file for Windows, one for e.g. Linux and implement the same function in two different ways in the two.
More information on build constraints are at http://golang.org/pkg/go/build/#hdr-Build_Constraints

Make ColdFusion on Ubuntu case-insensitive

I've installed apache2 and ColdFusion 9 on an Ubuntu 12.04 box. I've already use the CheckSpelling mod in Apache to disable case-sensitive URLs and other paths that Apache is responsible for.
Now, keep in mind, I'm working with about 4GB of legacy code (about 6 years worth) and very little is up to convention. The coders before me were not concerned with case sensitivity, seeing as how the application was hosted on a Windows Box. For the most part, ColdFusion is behaving with <cfinclude> and CreateObject, but it seems like <cfinvoke> (which is used quite often in the codebase) is still case sensitive.
Now, I've tried the method of moving the code onto a vfat partition, but what I ran into was a whole bunch of encoding issues with filenames (we deal with foreign companies and get a lot of special characters). Deleting and/or renaming the files would be cumbersome, as most are also referred to in the MySQL database, and would have to be modified there as well. So recoding is somewhat of a nightmare.
So, I'm curious if ColdFusion has any special flags when running on Linux to be case insensitive, or if there is another method for making this all come together?
EDIT
I'm Sorry, I was mistaken. cfinvoke seems to work ok. I'm choking on cfobject
I did some research, and this is what I came up with...
Creating Custom Tags (help.adobe.com)
Note: Although tag names in ColdFusion pages are not case sensitive, custom tag filenames must be lowercase on UNIX.
cfinvoke Documentation (help.adobe.com)
On UNIX systems, ColdFusion searches first for a file with a name that matches the specified component name, but is all lower case. If it does not find the file, it looks for a file name that matches the component name exactly, with the identical character casing.
Since <cfinvoke> is a standard tag, the tag itself is case-insensitive. However, it sounds like all component argument(s) to <cfinvoke> need to have a lower-case filenames in order for calls with irregular casing to succeed consistently. I know you said refactoring is difficult, but this is what I've come up with:
If you have a folder where you specifically keep components, it's trivial to run a shell script in that folder that renames them all to have lower-casing (remove -i if you don't want to be asked if you're sure each time):
for filename in *.cfc; do
lowercase =`echo $filename | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]'`
mv -i $filename $lowercase
done
If you don't have the components all in the same folder, try it from the top directory.
Let me know if you were able to give this a shot!

Structure of QuickTime's 'dref' atom 'alis' element

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.

How to decide on document file extension?

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.