Re: Bug (feature) in v6 listfiles shows hidden files ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2004
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 56888
interpreted = N
texte = >Kenneth Grome wrote: >>It just seems lazy or irresponsible to implement it in one OS but >>not all the others that could also use it. Why wait for a special >>request? Sometimes a little foresight goes a long ways ... :) > >Because normally Win32 doesn't obsessively strew hidden files all >through the file system, like the classic Mac OS does. I think you are wrong about this! You can whine about the way the MacOS works all you want (although it seems you know virtually nothing about it) but winXP is even worse in this situation -- because it creates a ".db" file (something the MacOS never does) in any folder that has an image file in it. How would you like it if you put a "thumbs.db" file in a folder so webdna can use it, and then you move some image files to that folder, and then WinXP decides to overwrite your thumbs.db with one of its own? Or how would you like it if WinXP has already created a thumbs.db file in a folder, and then you want to put one of your own there so webdna can use it, but you cannot put it there because of the conflict with WinXP's 'hidden' thumbs.db file (which of course you cannot see because it is hidden)? the MacOS is a smarter OS for sure. At least the hidden files that the MacOS creates have file names that begin with a character that other software *cannot* use as the first character of a file name ... thus making the MacOS's hidden files impossible to recreate in any other program. And they never use suffixed that are commonly used in other software ... >It seems stupid to assume that a flag in the file system like hidden >(or system) would have any meaning with a generic application (as >opposed to a GUI, which is where it is useful to hide stuff from the >user). So you think the hidden OS files are not "useful stuff to hide" from the webdna software? Maybe you do not have the mental capacity to look at this situation in a practical manner ... In my opinion (and I'll bet the opinion of nearly every other webdna programmer in the world) webdna should not "see" hidden files or deal with them in any way -- by default -- because the goal of the software is not to manipulate hidden files in the OS, it is to manipulate the visible files that you as the webdna programmer put there yourself. There is no situation I can think of in which exposing your hidden OS files to webdna or to the people who visit your web site is desirable or necessary. If it were desirable or necessary, SMSI could very well give us a preference to turn ON this capability -- otherwise it should remain OFF. How many times as a webdna programmer have you ever wanted to (or needed to) list the hidden OS files in a folder? I'll bet that this has never been necessary, and I'll bet that in the future it will never be necessary. Nevertheless, you claim that webdna should NOT work like a GUI program in terms of its default behavior ... and this is where I vehemently disagree with you. Clearly most people who use [listfiles] do NOT want hidden OS files to show up in the list. this is why I say that the default behavior should be to NOT see or list these files. This is my personal opinion, of course. So now I am curious: 1- How many think webdna should default to listing hidden OS files? 2- How many think webdna should default to NOT listing hidden OS files? -- Kenneth Grome WebDNA Programmer Outsource Service Provider Phone: +6332 255-6591 ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>Kenneth Grome wrote: >>It just seems lazy or irresponsible to implement it in one OS but >>not all the others that could also use it. Why wait for a special >>request? Sometimes a little foresight goes a long ways ... :) > >Because normally Win32 doesn't obsessively strew hidden files all >through the file system, like the classic Mac OS does. I think you are wrong about this! You can whine about the way the MacOS works all you want (although it seems you know virtually nothing about it) but winXP is even worse in this situation -- because it creates a ".db" file (something the MacOS never does) in any folder that has an image file in it. How would you like it if you put a "thumbs.db" file in a folder so webdna can use it, and then you move some image files to that folder, and then WinXP decides to overwrite your thumbs.db with one of its own? Or how would you like it if WinXP has already created a thumbs.db file in a folder, and then you want to put one of your own there so webdna can use it, but you cannot put it there because of the conflict with WinXP's 'hidden' thumbs.db file (which of course you cannot see because it is hidden)? the MacOS is a smarter OS for sure. At least the hidden files that the MacOS creates have file names that begin with a character that other software *cannot* use as the first character of a file name ... thus making the MacOS's hidden files impossible to recreate in any other program. And they never use suffixed that are commonly used in other software ... >It seems stupid to assume that a flag in the file system like hidden >(or system) would have any meaning with a generic application (as >opposed to a GUI, which is where it is useful to hide stuff from the >user). So you think the hidden OS files are not "useful stuff to hide" from the webdna software? Maybe you do not have the mental capacity to look at this situation in a practical manner ... In my opinion (and I'll bet the opinion of nearly every other webdna programmer in the world) webdna should not "see" hidden files or deal with them in any way -- by default -- because the goal of the software is not to manipulate hidden files in the OS, it is to manipulate the visible files that you as the webdna programmer put there yourself. There is no situation I can think of in which exposing your hidden OS files to webdna or to the people who visit your web site is desirable or necessary. If it were desirable or necessary, SMSI could very well give us a preference to turn ON this capability -- otherwise it should remain OFF. How many times as a webdna programmer have you ever wanted to (or needed to) list the hidden OS files in a folder? I'll bet that this has never been necessary, and I'll bet that in the future it will never be necessary. Nevertheless, you claim that webdna should NOT work like a GUI program in terms of its default behavior ... and this is where I vehemently disagree with you. Clearly most people who use [listfiles] do NOT want hidden OS files to show up in the list. this is why I say that the default behavior should be to NOT see or list these files. This is my personal opinion, of course. So now I am curious: 1- How many think webdna should default to listing hidden OS files? 2- How many think webdna should default to NOT listing hidden OS files? -- Kenneth Grome WebDNA Programmer Outsource Service Provider Phone: +6332 255-6591 ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Webcat2, WebCommerce, Mod 10 etc. (1997)
stats (2001)
WebCat hosting providers? (1997)
WebDNA Book? (2003)
[WebDNA] i wish we could require one *amongst of a collection* of search comparisons/params (2011)
Suggestions for Topics to be covered in an Advanced (1998)
Writefile help needed (2000)
more on quicktime test stuff (1997)
archives down? (2002)
Emailer update for Mac? (1998)
RE: Shopping Cart Questions (1998)
question: back button prevention (1997)
thread7715.debug (1999)
Cookies (1999)
[isfile] ? (1997)
Requiring that certain fields be completed (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997)
TaxTotal Problem (1997)
Encrypt broken on Mac 3.05b13?? (2000)
Another issue with [Date format] (1998)