Exit
  • Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
  • 한국 커뮤니티
0

BridgeTalk and version specifiers not working properly

Enthusiast ,
Jan 01, 2009 Jan 01, 2009
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...
TOPICS
Scripting
884
Translate
Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jan 01, 2009 Jan 01, 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
Translate
Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Jan 01, 2009 Jan 01, 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
Translate
Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jan 02, 2009 Jan 02, 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
Translate
Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Jan 02, 2009 Jan 02, 2009
LATEST
Good idea. Thanks.
Translate
Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines