Professional Web Applications Themes

Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?" - Mac Programming

Is there a good reason to do that?...

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    Is there a good reason to do that?
    Sponsored Links
    Bunny Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    In article <a8696178.0307241254.2149c67aposting.google.com >,
    [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    > Is there a good reason to do that?
    Why would anyone care? The Finder hides it anyway.

    Doug

    --
    Doug Brown - La Grande, OR
    Idiot's Guide to Mac Cases - [url]http://www.ircandy.com/maccases/[/url]
    If you want to reply by email, remove "pleasenospam." and ".invalid"
    Doug Brown Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    Bunny <bbunnymyrealbox.com> wrote:
    > Is there a good reason to do that?
    It's inherited from NeXT. It tells the Finder (and anyone else, for that
    matter) that the folder so named is an application bundle.
    Paul Mitchum Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    [email]usenetmile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message news:<1fylyja.xmoy5u1pwkjz3N%usenetmile23.com>...
    > Bunny <bbunnymyrealbox.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Is there a good reason to do that?
    >
    > It's inherited from NeXT. It tells the Finder (and anyone else, for that
    > matter) that the folder so named is an application bundle.
    But the app launches anyway.

    I made a program in Metal BASIC, and compiled it. It apparently runs
    in both OS 8.6 and OS X (I didn't know that was possible). If I share
    it, I am wondering if I need to append .app to the name or not. It
    runs without .app, but most commerical apps have .app appended.
    Bunny Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    In article <a8696178.0307250959.3d01e7fposting.google.com> ,
    [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    > [email]usenetmile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
    > news:<1fylyja.xmoy5u1pwkjz3N%usenetmile23.com>...
    > > Bunny <bbunnymyrealbox.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Is there a good reason to do that?
    > >
    > > It's inherited from NeXT. It tells the Finder (and anyone else, for that
    > > matter) that the folder so named is an application bundle.
    >
    > But the app launches anyway.
    >
    > I made a program in Metal BASIC, and compiled it. It apparently runs
    > in both OS 8.6 and OS X (I didn't know that was possible). If I share
    > it, I am wondering if I need to append .app to the name or not. It
    > runs without .app, but most commerical apps have .app appended.
    Is your application a bundle, i.e. a directory with a name ending with
    ..app, with a bunch of stuff in specific sub-directories? It's not
    necessary to do this, but it's usually the way things are done. Mainly
    because it provides the same kind of advantages that used to be provided
    by resource forks, but without actually requiring two-fork files.

    --
    Tom "Tom" Harrington
    Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
    See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]
    Tom Harrington Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    In article <a8696178.0307241254.2149c67aposting.google.com >,
    [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    >Is there a good reason to do that?
    Under Unix it's convenient for every file to have an
    extension so the applications can tell what type of file
    it is. It does make good sense for OS X to have an
    extension of some kind to make it easy for the OS to
    identify all the applications.


    Simon Slavin Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    Simon Slavin wrote:
    >Under Unix it's convenient for every file to have an
    >extension so the applications can tell what type of file
    >it is.
    Yes!
    > It does make good sense for OS X to have an
    >extension of some kind to make it easy for the OS to
    >identify all the applications.
    But the whole point of UNIX is that the OS doesn't know or care
    how the files are named -- much unlike other OS's from years gone by.

    It's all left up to the applications. In this case, it's Finder that does
    special things with *.app directories, not UNIX.



    Mike Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    In article <BB48C3269668114F8E10.0.1.3>, Simon Slavin
    <slavinshearsay.demon.co.uklocalhost> wrote:
    > In article <a8696178.0307241254.2149c67aposting.google.com >,
    > [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    >
    > >Is there a good reason to do that?
    >
    > Under Unix it's convenient for every file to have an
    > extension so the applications can tell what type of file
    > it is.
    Actually, aside from plain text, most common file formats in use today
    have signature strings at a known location near the beginning of the
    file. Also, several systems in use include meta-data to serve that
    purpose, such as Apple's 4-byte codes or even MIME strings.
    Applications should emphatically not rely on something as transient as
    the name to determine type for those cases when an alternative exists.

    G
    Greg Weston Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    Simon Slavin wrote:
    > In article <a8696178.0307241254.2149c67aposting.google.com >,
    > [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Is there a good reason to do that?
    >
    >
    > Under Unix it's convenient for every file to have an
    > extension so the applications can tell what type of file
    > it is. It does make good sense for OS X to have an
    > extension of some kind to make it easy for the OS to
    > identify all the applications.
    >
    >
    No. Exactly under UNIX it was never necessary nor useful! UNIX can
    perform "magic" and identify the file type by what consitutes the type
    (content) for ages!

    Try the magic for yourself:

    shanghai:~$ file SD_IDE64_main.c
    SD_IDE64_main.c: C program text

    shanghai:~$ file README
    README: Rich Text Format data, version 1, Apple Macintosh


    This filename extension is a damn stupid msdos heritage, which now
    prevails even in the most modern MacOS, because otherwise the
    msdos/windows wouldn't be able to do anything with the received files... :-(

    Apple had (slightly) better approach in their previous OSes but now they
    seem to have adopted the completely ill, msdos-like style :-(

    Read more on:

    [url]http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q3/metadata/metadata-1.html[/url]
    [url]http://homepage.mac.com/jcs/.Public/metadata.html[/url]

    Even if I don't completely agree with the suggested solution (Unix does
    it better for a very long time), it can give more light to the situation.


    Patryk 'Silver Dream !' Łogiewa Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    > > In article <a8696178.0307241254.2149c67aposting.google.com >,
    > > [email]bbunnymyrealbox.com[/email] (Bunny) wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Is there a good reason to do that?
    > >
    > >
    Ignoring the argument over which meta-data scheme is the best. On MacOS X,
    not all applications have to have .app on the end of them.

    The applications that do have to have the .app added to them are those
    applications that are "Bundled" or "Packaged." What you have here is a
    folder that contains a structured hierarchy for the actual executable file
    and all of its resources. This folder strucutre is hidden from the user by
    the OS treating the folder as the application itself and presenting to the
    user one file.

    Normally, when you double-click on a folder in the Finder, that folder
    opens. The Finder needed a way to know to treat these application bundled
    folders as the application itself. The way it does that is with the .app
    extension.

    Are there other ways this could have been done? Yes.
    Are there other ways that would be better? Probably.
    Are there other ways that would survive moving this application across the
    net and/or disk formats other than HSF+? Maybe.

    I guess the above question is tainted a little bit by asking if there was
    a "good" reason. Regardless of why the way Apple did it is "good" or not,
    if your application is bundled, be sure to put .app on the end of the
    enclosing folder name or it wont work (among the other things you need to
    do).

    However, if your application is not bundled (some CFM apps) and has the
    proper resource fork info, then it does not need the .app extension.

    Then you have some unix executables. These executables don't have .app on
    the end of them. However, you can not launch them from the Finder. These
    apps generally don't have a GUI and should be run from a terminal, or some
    controlling application anyway.

    I don't know about any of the X-11 stuff Apple released or how those
    executables are laid out. So my apologies if the X-11 stuff conflicts with
    any above statements.

    -raleigh


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
    Raleigh Ledet Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    "Patryk 'Silver Dream !' ?ogiewa" <silverdrinet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message news:<3f2d4f32$1news.inet.com.pl>...
    > Try the magic for yourself:
    >
    > shanghai:~$ file SD_IDE64_main.c
    > SD_IDE64_main.c: C program text
    >
    > shanghai:~$ file README
    > README: Rich Text Format data, version 1, Apple Macintosh
    Except it doesn't work so hot.

    file sym.pl
    sym.pl: perl commands text

    OK, yeah, it's a perl file. However

    file t.pl
    t.pl: ASCII text

    Also a perl file, but it thinks it's just ASCII text

    file main.m
    main.m: C program text

    OK, I guess objective C is close enough to C with such a short file, But

    file MyDoent.m
    MyDoent.m: C++ program text

    What the...?

    file T55.xml
    T55.xml: ASCII text

    Can't even look for <?xml as a magic string?
    Eric Pepke Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    Eric Pepke wrote:
    >>Try the magic for yourself:
    >>
    >>shanghai:~$ file SD_IDE64_main.c
    >>SD_IDE64_main.c: C program text
    >>
    >>shanghai:~$ file README
    >>README: Rich Text Format data, version 1, Apple Macintosh
    >
    >
    > Except it doesn't work so hot.
    >
    [...]
    > file T55.xml
    > T55.xml: ASCII text
    >
    > Can't even look for <?xml as a magic string?
    The mechanism is there. The database quality might differ (your mileage
    may vary :-). You may feel free to update your global magic database or
    create local. If you do it good enough you might probably submit your
    patches to improve the quality of this service in the future realeases.
    The difference, however is that this way you MIGHT get poor results if
    you don't have a good database. It is then easy to improve its content
    with every mistake you notice. Depending on filename to determine
    filetype WILL give poor results if the filename (for any reason) doesn't
    reflect the _expected_ (vs. real) file type.

    Anyway, this is probably slightly OT now.

    Patryk 'Silver Dream !' Łogiewa Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why Make OS X Apps End with ".app?"

    In Article [email]blackgold-0408031501230001rledet.wacom.com[/email], Raleigh Ledet wrote:
    > Ignoring the argument over which meta-data scheme is the best. On MacOS X,
    > not all applications have to have .app on the end of them.
    >
    > The applications that do have to have the .app added to them are those
    > applications that are "Bundled" or "Packaged." What you have here is a
    > folder that contains a structured hierarchy for the actual executable file
    > and all of its resources. This folder strucutre is hidden from the user by
    > the OS treating the folder as the application itself and presenting to the
    > user one file.
    >
    > Normally, when you double-click on a folder in the Finder, that folder
    > opens. The Finder needed a way to know to treat these application bundled
    > folders as the application itself. The way it does that is with the .app
    > extension.
    It is not required to have ".app" extension even for bundled apps!
    Finder launches them anyway. Try it. I believe this is because both
    ".app" extension and "bundle" bits are checked. Maybe Finder goes
    even further and look for "Contents/MacOS..." folders inside.

    --
    Mike Kluev

    PS. Remove "-DELETE-." part of my e-mail address to reply.

    Mike Kluev Guest

Similar Threads

  1. #33400 [Opn->Csd]: make "make" a dendency of "make test"
    By tony2001@php.net in forum PHP Bugs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 11th, 01:54 AM
  2. How to make "Print page" and "Print Chapter" buttons
    By Jaco_J_Cloete@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 20th, 12:05 PM
  3. The Printer "Adobe PDF 7.0" Doesn't Work in All Apps?
    By David_E_Illig@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 17th, 01:49 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 25th, 03:59 PM
  5. How to make the "search text" feature work with non "txt" file
    By Sharon F in forum Windows XP/2000/ME
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 30th, 07:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139