Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!jerryg
From: jerryg@Apple.COM (Jerry Godes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Communications Toolbox questions
Message-ID: <5536@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 89 08:55:09 GMT
References: <9125@hoptoad.uucp> <9145@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 45

In article <9145@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>While I'm here, I might as well post my response to that message.  Is
>anyone else interested in theseissues, or should I save the bandwidth?

My guess is there are more people who are interested in the CommToolbox.
Any issues you may have others probably do as well.

>As for the installation issues, the problem has more to do with floppy
>disk space than the messiness of Installer.  There's not enough room
>for both the system file w/Toolbox and the tools, so the user has to
>create the new folder by hand and drag the tools into it.  This goes
>against every principle of Mac interface design I can think of....
Well, Byron has explained why we're putting the toolbox into the system
itself.  But, I don't think things are quite as bad as it seems...
First, if you're going to use all of the tools, just drag one already
named folder from the floppy onto the target.  Granted it would be nicer
if you didn't have to do this...

The other thing is the installer scripts themselves.  The final version
of the installer script only installs the CommToolbox itself, not the
tools.  However, this script doesn't have to be the one you ship
with your product.  You could write your own script that installs the
toolbox, the tools, and your application itself - the user won't have
to drag anything.  Yes, it does mean more work for you, but writing
installer scripts to install entire files is pretty easy.

>About the status dialogs -- what I'd like to see is a callback
>mechanism to the application, so it could handle status changes in a
>way appropriate to its interface...
You're not the only one who wants this, this has been a common complaint
since I've started to hear real developer feedback in May at the
developer conference... We'll be looking into this.


>Finally, on the "file transfer sub-protocol" issue
I'm leaving this one alone...  I'm not the expert on file transfers.
You do have a valid point about the separate layer - something else
we have to look into.

Hope this answers some of your newer questions...  Hopefully someone
else will respond to the stuff that I haven't covered...

Jerry Godes
CommToolbox Janitor
Apple Computer, Inc.