On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:41 AM, smaug <sm...@welho.com> wrote: > ipdl? or do you mean idl? or perhaps webidl? > Also, xpconnect doesn't deal with rust, and our chrome code still heavily > relies on idl+xpconnect. >
I have written https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1293362, which while I'm not actively working on, could be used to help close that idl+xpconnect gap a bit. I've definitely had some opposition to the idea of adding rust bindings to XPCOM interfaces because we're theoretically trying to kill them however. If we decide that getting good bindings is a thing which we want in order to to develop more stuff in rust I can polish the patches back up. memory management. As far as I know there is no reasonable way to deal with > cycle collection (which means also no reasonable way to have references to > JS objects). > I don't have my WIP cycle collection with rust XPCOM interfaces patches on that bug, but both of these things are doable with XPCOM bindings for rust. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
