Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Or, at least, the preview should not take more space than the image file ;-) On Apr 15, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > The PNG file does not contain a load of data for its icon and the like, so it > seems terrible that the alias must. It would seem that the alias should be > able to

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Sorry if I overlooked that. In and out of Xcode right now. Yeah, I always remembered them as pointers to files. It seems like terrible overkill to embed the fat data in the aliases. The point that I was trying to make which obviously was not obvious is that if a screenshot saved out of the

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > Well, thinking back to 1995, it appeared that they were exactly that. > > What Is the payload full of now, icons and previews or what? > > Sent from my iPod Um, yes, as has already been mentioned, aliases store the icons of their target fil

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Well, thinking back to 1995, it appeared that they were exactly that. What Is the payload full of now, icons and previews or what? Sent from my iPod On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Scott Ribe wrote: > On Apr 15, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > >> Nope. I'm thinking back to 1995 when

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > Nope. I'm thinking back to 1995 when an alias was about 2K. > > But I don't want to clog the list up with this. It just seems strange that > an alias now has to be so large a set of data structures. > > 668KB? Even if we are in the days

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Marco S Hyman wrote: > On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > >> Space savings definitely used to be one of the benefits. > > Perhaps you are confusing alias with symbolic link? They are > not the same thing even though the finder displays them using

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > Space savings definitely used to be one of the benefits. Perhaps you are confusing alias with symbolic link? They are not the same thing even though the finder displays them using the same icon. Marc ___

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > Space savings definitely used to be one of the benefits. Space savings was *never* a reason to use a alias. In what reasonable scenario would you use aliases to save space??? > I wonder when that changed and why. Previews maybe? I don't kn

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Space savings definitely used to be one of the benefits. I wonder when that changed and why. On Apr 15, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Scott Ribe wrote: > Allowing the user to move the original without disrupting references to it is > the point, not space savings. > > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Ale

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Allowing the user to move the original without disrupting references to it is the point, not space savings. On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Alex Zavatone wrote: > What's the point of aliases if they are this fat? -- Scott Ribe scott_r...@elevated-dev.com http://www.elevated-dev.com/ (303) 722-0

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Along these lines, I made an alias to one of my project files that was 48K. The alias is 668 K. W T F? What's the point of aliases if they are this fat? On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Michael Hall wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Shane Stanley wrote: > >> On 15/04/2012, at 9:23 PM, Mich

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Shane Stanley wrote: > On 15/04/2012, at 9:23 PM, Michael Hall wrote: > >> If your criteria is best variety of icons, then current could be argued >> buggy since it only has one icon resource to the Finder's two. > > But the Finder really only has one, twice. > t

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On 15/04/2012, at 9:23 PM, Michael Hall wrote: > If your criteria is best variety of icons, then current could be argued buggy > since it only has one icon resource to the Finder's two. But the Finder really only has one, twice. -- Shane Stanley 'AppleScriptObjC Explored' _

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 14, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Shane Stanley wrote: > Thanks, Charles. I guess that makes it arguably a Finder bug. Nicely done, what was actually used on the resource forks out of curiosity? Really, on the arguably a bug? I suppose if your sole criteria is minimal size. Or maybe the criteria is

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On 15/04/2012, at 3:26 AM, Charles Srstka wrote: > the Finder has *two* such ‘icns’ resources; one with ID -16496 and one with > ID -16455. The two ‘icns’ resources appear to be identical, and if I subtract > the size of one of them from the Finder alias’s size, I get the size of the > NSURL-cr

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:28:20 -0500, Michael Hall said: >I did a quick google out of curiosity and there doesn't appear to be >much available anymore to handle actually looking at or working with >resource forks. There's this:

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 13, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Shane Stanley wrote: > I'm creating alias files using bookmark data, as in the docs: > > NSData *bookmarkData = [url > bookmarkDataWithOptions:NSURLBookmarkCreationSuitableForBookmarkFile >includingResourceValuesForKeys:nil >

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On 14/04/2012, at 11:28 PM, Michael Hall wrote: > I did a quick google out of curiosity and there doesn't appear to be much > available anymore to handle actually looking at or working with resource > forks. If you can examine contents you could scan for the AppleEvent id's > 'alis' or 'bmrk'.

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 14, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Shane Stanley wrote: > Thanks Ken and Michael. So the Finder-generated alias has a ~96KB resource > fork, and the bookmark-generated one has a 48KB resource fork. On comparing > them, it looks like the first ~48KB are identical apart from the first and > last few b

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

Thanks Ken and Michael. So the Finder-generated alias has a ~96KB resource fork, and the bookmark-generated one has a 48KB resource fork. On comparing them, it looks like the first ~48KB are identical apart from the first and last few bytes -- and the second 48KB of the Finder-generated one is a

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 14, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Ken Thomases wrote: > You can also access the resource fork as a file by appending > "/..namedfork/rsrc" to the path. Ken beat me to it after I found this... Work with resource forks in the Terminal http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2002022409532098 Ken

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 14, 2012, at 4:40 AM, Shane Stanley wrote: > On 14/04/2012, at 6:23 PM, Ken Thomases wrote: > >> The Finder-created one probably has a resource fork with additional data. >> That accounts for the size difference that isn't visible using "ls". >> Off-hand, I don't know what the resource

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On 14/04/2012, at 6:23 PM, Ken Thomases wrote: > The Finder-created one probably has a resource fork with additional data. > That accounts for the size difference that isn't visible using "ls". > Off-hand, I don't know what the resource fork data holds. How do I see the resource forks, if not

Re: Bookmark alias files v. Finder alias files

On Apr 13, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Shane Stanley wrote: > When I look in the Finder, a Finder-created alias of the same file is listed > as 144KB, while the one I saved is 96KB. I'm curious about what's in that > extra 48KB. > > I had a look in Terminal and got this: > > Shanes-iMac:~ shane$ ls -lao