johnpitcairn

Is there some technical or philosophical reason why this is not possible or allowed? As for mechanism, a small extension to the File object might suffice, ie:

f = new File("Scratch:/testfolder", "readwrite", "fold");

f = new File("Scratch:/testfolder", "readwrite", "fold");
if(f.isopen)
{
	f.close;
}

request-folder-creation-from-javascript

also worthwhile would be a "delete file" method. I recall this was discussed, perhaps in another context, some time ago (there was some fear of security or Max being the product of choice for malicious code writers or something), but it would be great! right now I'm using jit.qt.movie's "kill" command, but of course that means one has to use jitter for this and is limited to files that jit.qt.movie can read!

i 2nd that!  
also worthwhile would be a "delete file" method.  I recall this was discussed, perhaps in another context, some time ago (there was some fear of security or Max being the product of choice for malicious code writers or something), but it would be great! right now I'm using jit.qt.movie's "kill" command, but of course that means one has to use jitter for this and is limited to files that jit.qt.movie can read!


Quote: pnyboer wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 03:37

----------------------------------------------------

> there was some fear of security or Max being the product of 

> choice for malicious code writers or something

Really? On OS X I can write highly malicious code in a few lines of AppleScript if I want to, though even then it'll be limited to the current user's permissions without requesting a password.

On Windows, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and the command shell already constitute malicious code in my book. If I wanted an easy way to write malware, there's VB (or whatever it's called this year) and RealBasic just for starters.

Security for web- and mail-embedded JavaScript, sure, but that's not the development environment's problem - emasculating the programming tools isn't the solution to OS security.

Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.

Quote: pnyboer wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 03:37
----------------------------------------------------
> there was some fear of security or Max being the product of 
> choice for malicious code writers or something

Really? On OS X I can write highly malicious code in a few lines of AppleScript if I want to, though even then it'll be limited to the current user's permissions without requesting a password. 

Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.


> emasculating the programming tools isn't the solution to OS security.

i wasn't defending it..just summarizing a past thread according to a 

> Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at 

> startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.

>  emasculating the programming tools isn't the solution to OS security.

i wasn't defending it..just summarizing a past thread according to a 
scanty memory :)

>
> Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at 
> startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.

>Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at 

>startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.

Just curious John - why don't you want to go the Java route?

202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X

>Sigh. I just want to check/create a preference folder structure at 
>startup, without Java, and without 3rd-party objects.

Dan
-- 
Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com
http://www.jackosx.com


Aside from not having great Java chops, and not being inclined to learn/read too much more to perform what are essentially very simple tasks, I'm also wary of Java version/library incompatibilities, and would prefer not to open up the possibility of that in a commercial app. I'll use it if I MUST, but frankly once we're talking about that sort of language I'd rather learn C/C++/ObjC than Java.

The things that attract me to JavaScript for Max is that it's a fully interpreted language, completely self-contained, documentation is highly accessible, and it requires nothing other than Max to run.

Also, given Max annoyingly doesn't understand the ~/ Unix path shorthand for the user's home directory (hint: that's a request), I'd like to be able to either

B - preferably, get the path to various system directories from the root, local, or user domains.

Because I'm vaguely concerned that the handy but unsupported "findfolder" object might never make it to Universal binary, then I'm screwed again.

> Because I'm vaguely concerned that the handy but unsupported 

> "findfolder" object might never make it to Universal binary, then 

>
> Because I'm vaguely concerned that the handy but unsupported  
> "findfolder" object might never make it to Universal binary, then  
> I'm screwed again.
>

I am also concerned by this...
Philippe.


Not unreasonable - but I think that your worry about the Java version 

stuff is mostly unfounded. I struggled with a very similar issue as 

you recently, and decided to go the Java route for my task (where it 

At 1:34 PM +1200 6/22/06, John Pitcairn wrote:

>Aside from not having great Java chops, and not being inclined to 

>learn/read too much more to perform what are essentially very simple 

>tasks, I'm also wary of Java version/library incompatibilities, and 

>would prefer not to open up the possibility of that in a commercial 

>app. I'll use it if I MUST, but frankly once we're talking about 

>that sort of language I'd rather learn C/C++/ObjC than Java.

>The things that attract me to JavaScript for Max is that it's a 

>fully interpreted language, completely self-contained, documentation 

>is highly accessible, and it requires nothing other than Max to run.

Not unreasonable - but I think that your worry about the Java version 
stuff is mostly unfounded.  I struggled with a very similar issue as 
you recently, and decided to go the Java route for my task (where it 
was trivial), and so far, so good...

At 1:34 PM +1200 6/22/06, John Pitcairn wrote:
>Aside from not having great Java chops, and not being inclined to 
>learn/read too much more to perform what are essentially very simple 
>tasks, I'm also wary of Java version/library incompatibilities, and 
>would prefer not to open up the possibility of that in a commercial 
>app. I'll use it if I MUST, but frankly once we're talking about 
>that sort of language I'd rather learn C/C++/ObjC than Java.
>
>The things that attract me to JavaScript for Max is that it's a 
>fully interpreted language, completely self-contained, documentation 
>is highly accessible, and it requires nothing other than Max to run.
>

-- 
Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com
http://www.jackosx.com


I'd also love for a JS way to do these things, as I too fear the 

findfolder object will not survive the transition to UB.

I've resorted to Java for these types of tasks, which so far has worked well.

At 4:32 PM +1200 6/22/06, John Pitcairn wrote:

>Also, given Max annoyingly doesn't understand the ~/ Unix path 

>shorthand for the user's home directory (hint: that's a request), 

>A - get the current user's shortname, or

>B - preferably, get the path to various system directories from the 

>Because I'm vaguely concerned that the handy but unsupported 

>"findfolder" object might never make it to Universal binary, then 

I'd also love for a JS way to do these things, as I too fear the 
findfolder object will not survive the transition to UB.

At 4:32 PM +1200 6/22/06, John Pitcairn wrote:
>Also, given Max annoyingly doesn't understand the ~/ Unix path 
>shorthand for the user's home directory (hint: that's a request), 
>I'd like to be able to either
>
>A - get the current user's shortname, or
>
>B - preferably, get the path to various system directories from the 
>root, local, or user domains.
>
>Because I'm vaguely concerned that the handy but unsupported 
>"findfolder" object might never make it to Universal binary, then 
>I'm screwed again.

Request: folder creation from javascript