Jamin,

On Jan 7, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Jamin wrote:

> Well firstly, you should not be using Working Directories under OSX.

firstly, FB is doing this. not me,  I have 128 folders of data, for  
what simple reason should i not be able to read a file in the 129th  
folder or the 130th?

so you are saying a modern OS should only support access to a maximum  
of 128 folders? and i should somehow design my program around this  
limitation? One folder, with 127 more inside is ALL it would access,  
2 folders deep max

thats ludicrous.  i have clients with 10 POS stations resetting their  
cash drawers ,  3 - 4 times a day, each creating a new data of folder  
just for that cash drawer session. in a few days time, there were  
many files. I had ways of reusing them, but when something went  
wrong, the folders continued to be created ( which is what i thought  
was no problem   )

> Secondly, you should not have this many open at one time, they  
> should be closed as you finish with them.

I only have one file at a time open. where did i say i had more than  
one file.

> Thirdly, I think they are emulated under OSX by the FB runtime,  
> just for backward compatibility.
> The only case I could see for having that many open, is if you were  
> going 127 levels deep in a nested folder structure, but then that  
> takes me back to the first point.

I never said is was 127  levels deep.  Just 102 folders in a single  
folder.

>
> All you really need is the parent id of the folder (and the volume  
> ref), then you can make an FSSpec without the working directory ref.

the folder function in FB only can handle 127 vrefs  it won't deal  
out any more

i think you missed some of what posted.

> It will also be faster.
> There should be examples of PBGetCatInfo on the CD - that routine  
> does it all without the pre-System 7 working directories concept.
> PBGetCatInfo is an ancient call in itself, there may be even newer  
> ways for OSX (FSRef etc).
>
>
> Jamin
>
>
> Steve Crossman wrote:
>> It really wasn't nested folders, 2 levels deep,  but the number  
>> of  folders FB would keep track of.
>> seems fine at 1024 which has been tested with 1100 folders.
>> There should be no limitations in OS X,  maybe 4 billion ?
>> On Jan 7, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Russ Pagel wrote:
>>> Does anyone know if there are limitations on the Apple file  
>>> system  on the
>>> number of nested folders?
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: futurebasic- 
>> unsubscribe@...
>
> --
>