Your proposal sounds somewhat similar to the way the webapprt is being delivered too. I think that's a good thing.
----- Original Message ----- > I propose that we just stop pretending, and terminate xulrunner, > considering the following: > - Xulrunner is lagging behind Firefox: DLL block list, startup telemetry, > etc. > - Since bug 755724, running firefox -app application.ini is 99% the same > as running xulrunner application.ini, except for a few details that > should be considered bugs. Before that bug, it was quite different, > as browser-specific files were available to the xul application. > - There is no reason we can't generate the sdk from firefox instead of > xulrunner. Moreover that would make firefox-specific interfaces > available in the sdk that aren't currently (which may or may not be a > good thing, arguably) > - We could include the xulrunner and xulrunner-stub executables as part > of firefox. xulrunner-stub is small and self-contained, and xulrunner > could be replaced by something that calls firefox -app. Or we could > make the firefox executable check under what name it's called and act > accordingly. > Thoughts? > Mike > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
