home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- >>>>> "Thurman" == Thurman Gillespy <tg3@u.washington.edu> writes:
-
- Thurman> I only use Macs, but I am distributing an image display
- Thurman> program for medical images. People always want to know
- Thurman> about a PC version, and I'm obviously interested in
- Thurman> having my program run with Executor. Someone in our
- Thurman> department got NIH-Image to run on a PC, which greatly
- Thurman> peaked my interest. Unfortunately, I require some System
- Thurman> 7 features, actually just the 4 required apple events,
- Thurman> and the calls to CustomGetFile, CustomPutFile. So
- Thurman> question 1, what are the plans for System 7 support? If
- Thurman> you only supported the 4 required apple events, a lot
- Thurman> more programs could run under executor.
-
- We intend to "spoof" all of the "easy" System 7 features, including
- apple events. Our preliminary plan is that the application will never
- see any apple events. When it asks if any are present, the answer
- will just always come back "no". That should make most apps happy.
-
- We also plan to implement many of the System 7 filesystem extensions.
- We intend to begin work on this as soon as 1.99m is out. Hopefully
- we'll be able to spoof enough traps that many System 7 programs will
- run. Tricky stuff, like QuickTime, is out of the question for now,
- but most programs don't appear to demand the tricky stuff.
-
- Thurman> Question 2. How feasible would it be to specify a (bogus)
- Thurman> system call that actually pointed to some 386/486 code
- Thurman> that would run in native mode? This code would make no
- Thurman> calls to the Mac API, but could do a processing intensive
- Thurman> task that normally takes a real hit when run in
- Thurman> emulation. With the release of the Metrowerks CodeWarrior
- Thurman> Platinum system next month, this kind of mixed
- Thurman> development will actually become very easy on the Mac.
-
- That wouldn't be hard at all; in fact, Executor already uses a
- mechanism like this internally. We just don't (yet) have any
- incentive to provide a public API for it. You have to beware of the
- fact that x86 code manipulates little endian data, while a 68k
- program's data is stored in big endian byte order.
-
- -Mat
-
-