Subject: Re: Apple Double?
From: Dave Ritter (dave.ritter@newtimes.com)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 17:04:34 EDT
some applications put almost nothing in the resource fork, others put
everything in the resource fork...
most applications are entirely composed of resources and little or nothing
in the data fork....
> From: Philip Bertuglia <pbertugl@wheatonma.edu>
> Reply-To: Philip Bertuglia <pbertugl@wheatonma.edu>
> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:46:16 -0700
> To: Patrik Schindler <poc@pocnet.net>
> Cc: netatalk-admins@umich.edu
> Bcc: "Dave Ritter" <Dave.Ritter@newtimes.com>
> Subject: Re: Apple Double?
>
> Is it true that on most applications the resource fork contains more then
> just he creator information? I was under the impression that the
> application uses the information as well. Thus, a file with no resource fork
> is almost totally useless. I hope I'm wrong, because this would save me a
> lot of time.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Patrik Schindler wrote:
>
>> At 15:01 Uhr -0500 03.04.2000, Bill Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm at 1.42b+asun2.1.3 on Solaris 2.6. I was having all sorts of problems
>>> with clients reading .AppleDouble files (from a 1.42.b+asun2.1.0 setup),
>>> so I decided to cleanse the file system by removing all the .AppleDouble
>>> files, figuring they would be recreated, no big deal.
>>
>> If you don't have any programs, this is okay.
>>
>>> Well, that went ok and works, users have to open their files within the
>>> application for the document, no big deal. However, the .AppleDouble files
>>> created are bogus, I've been getting the following in syslog:
>>> afpd[17612]: ad_refresh: can't parse AppleDouble header.
>>> afpd[17084]: ad_refresh: can't parse AppleDouble header.
>>
>> Are you sure that they have been recreated at this point?
>>
>>> I've also noticed that the icon given to the file is not that of the
>>> application used to modify/save the file.
>>
>> If there are no .AppleDouble files, files are mapped via extension mappings
>> in
> an AppleVolumes File. Have a look into this.
>>
>>> Seems to me a field is off
>>> somewhere. Is there a fix for this? The only compile time settings I
>>> changed were to leave out PAM support and enable Berkeley DB. Is there
>>> something else I should have included?
>>
>> No, I dont' think so.
>>
>> :wq! PoC
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:30:24 EST