On 2/6/2014 2:08 AM, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently submitted a bug and patch to copy the stub executable and application bundling
script (install_app.py) from XULRunner to Firefox. Mike Hommey (glandium) thinks that's
a bad idea. [2] His objection is that "that just makes it stay outdated each time
browser/app/nsBrowserApp.cpp is changed, which is one of the many reasons we want to get
rid of xulrunner."
It's clear that we need a stub executable to run apps. The question at
hand is whether firefox.exe can be that executable or whether we need a
different one.
Third, a "Owners' Vote" section where a group of contributors vote yea or nay
on the second section as it stands on the date they last read it. Specific objections
and commentary may be written afterward. Also, constructive edits anywhere in the
document (in particular, clarifying requirements or adding important requirements that I
missed) are welcome. The idea is to arrive at a clear consensus on requirements.
glandium and I are the owners in terms of Mozilla module ownership.
While I certainly don't mind this relatively formal process of
collecting various requirements, I think that it might be just as useful
to start with what we have: an SDK which primarily supports Firefox
addon authors who are compiling binary components. Then progressively
add and subtract features until we have whatever solves other needs.
As for delivery dates on the actual Firefox Platform SDK: I don't know.
The core requirements are pretty simple:
* Firefox addon authors need to be able to use it to compile binary
XPCOM components
* It needs to be built as part of the Firefox build and shipped with the
first beta of a release
It seems that this is perfectly achievable in the 30 timeframe, and we
can add more pieces later as people are available to do the work.
--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
