Skip to main content
H
hillrg
Known Participant
January 1, 2009
Question

BridgeTalk and version specifiers not working properly

  • January 1, 2009
  • 3 replies
  • 975 views
BridgeTalk.getSpecifier('photoshop')
Result: photoshop-11.032

BridgeTalk.getSpecifier('photoshop', 11)
Result: null

With Photoshop CS4 (version 11) running:

BridgeTalk.isRunning('photoshop')
Result: true

BridgeTalk.isRunning('photoshop-11')
Result: false

BridgeTalk.isRunning('photoshop-11.032')
Result: true

This is breaking a lot of my code. Also, the adobelibrary scripts are broken. Is adobe committed to these scripts - if not, why produce them?

As seems to be the case for adobe products in the last few years, the ESTK continues to be a work in progress...
This topic has been closed for replies.

3 replies

H
hillrgAuthor
Known Participant
January 2, 2009
Good idea. Thanks.
H
hillrgAuthor
Known Participant
January 2, 2009
Thanks - I wanted to make sure I wasn't going nuts. I guess I am either going to have to debug adobelibrary1.jsx or forget CS4 and give up on adobe scripting, and frankly, I'm leaning toward the latter.

Rory
_
_xbytor_
Known Participant
January 2, 2009
> I guess I am either going to have to debug adobelibrary1.jsx or forget CS4 and give up on adobe scripting, and frankly, I'm leaning toward the latter.

After the CS2->CS3 upgrade, I removed any dependencies my scripts had on
Adobe-provided scripts. xtools never had a problem but some smaller scripts I
wrote for other people did and they would stop working when Adobe upgraded. I
reimplemented small portions of adobelibrary1.jsx as needed.

-X
_
_xbytor_
Known Participant
January 2, 2009
>
> This is breaking a lot of my code. Also, the adobelibrary scripts are broken. Is adobe committed to these scripts - if not, why produce them?
>
> As seems to be the case for adobe products in the last few years, the ESTK continues to be a work in progress...


The way app specifiers have 'evolved' is a bit messed up.
'photoshop-11.032' for Vista32 and 'photoshop-11.064' for Vista64 is dumb, dumb,
dumb. Why is the fact that it's 32 or 64bit in the app specifier? Most of my
code does checks like 'app.version.match(/^11\.)' so I didn't really get bit by
this but I do have installation code that does have to distinguish between
Vista32/64. Using $.os or some other mechanism makes much more sense.

Adobe's apparent view of script portability for _their_ scripts is that they
provide scripts for a specific version of their products. If the scripts happen
to function with prior or subsequent releases, it's not intentional on their
part nor is it supported.

-X
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices