OT: 10.4 "Automator" = Applescript?

[Richard Gaskin]

Howard Bornstein wrote:
> This is from an email correspondence I had with the Engineering Manager of
> Automator at Apple in September of 2004:
> 
> -------------
> There have been some discussions about the various ways to interact with
> Applescript on the Revolution listserv. Since Automator is a high-level
> interface for Applescript, I wanted to find out if the applescript it 
> generates
> is actually available? That is, is the actual applescript code viewable and
> accessible?
> 
>>> This is inaccurate.  Automator could be described as a high-level 
>>> interface for scripting or automation, but it's not tied to AppleScript.
>>>
>>> Automator does not generate an AppleScript to represent the entire 
>>> workflow. Each action is a separate bundle executed independently by 
>>> the Automator engine.
> 
> 
> Is the actual applescript code viewable and accessible?
> 
>>> An individual action may be backed by an AppleScript (many use no 
>>> AppleScript at all), but the way we are planning to ship them, a 
>>> customer wouldn't have access to the script.  It is a compiled script 
>>> with the script source removed.
>>> This would allow a script-savvy application to execute the script, 
>>> but not view it, so it would be accessible, but not viewable.  But 
>>> without the surrounding infrastructure of the action bundle, the 
>>> script alone might not help you too much.  You'd have to reimplement 
>>> what's in the surrounding bundle.
> 
> 
> Since Revolution can execute applescript directly, it seems that the 
> combination
> of Revolution and Automator could be very powerful. Build inter-application
> processes with Automator and include these in a more robust Revolution
> application.
> 
>>> This is doable, but it has little to do with AppleScript.  Revolution 
>>> would need to learn how to load and execute action bundles, which is 
>>> easy to do using Cocoa.

Thanks for the clarification, Howard.

If they're not using compiled AppleScript for these "action bundles", it 
looks like yet another OS X-only API to support.  Too bad, as making 
AppleScript dictionaries is already well adopted.

On the bright side, with their increased adoption for OS X it probably 
has as much as 1.8% of the global desktop market by now.  For Tiger we 
may see a whopping 1.6% adoption in less than a year -- woo hoo!  ;)

When will the industry grow up to create a universal 
platform-independent application interoperability standard?

Maybe that'll happen the day after the various Linux window managers get 
together and create a common standard mechanism for app installation 
essentials (icon, Start menu shortcuts, file associations).

Hey, I can dream can't I? :)

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __________________________________________________
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev