On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:57 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyongg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <pidgeo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 1/4/2016 9:24 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > > > >> 1、I was not trying implement new things in xpcom, our company(Kingsoft) > >> are > >> maintaining a fork of thunderbird, and at the current time > >> We have to re-use existing XPCOM components that already exists in the > >> thunderbid gecko world, beyond pure html > >> things, there is too much things we have to re-use(xpcom things), and we > >> are facing performance problems, > >> the mork-db and the mime-parse, they are all working in synchronous way, > >> so > >> I have to figure out a way to calling these components > >> in a worker directly, so that they would not cause UI-lag in > main-thread. > >> That's all the reason why I was trying to re-implement XPConnect with > >> js-ctypes. So that I can calling > >> the exist components in the worker. And free the main-thread. > >> > > > > Mork, by design, can't be used off main-thread. So even if you're trying > > to subvert it by using JS-ctypes and etc., it's not going to work very > > well, let alone the problems you have with trying to maintain a > > pseudo-reimplementation of xpconnect. > > > >> 3、 There is an advantage of XPCOM, WebIDL seems merely for Javascript, > but > >> XPCOM seems more language-neutral, we could be able to > >> use xpcom in Java/Python and other languages, that's looks like a > >> advantage > >> of XPCOM. > >> > > XPIDL is effectively a fork of an old version of IDL. Its interfaces are > > incapable of cleanly representing union types or array types very well, > > something that WebIDL does far better, as WebIDL is partly a fork of a > > newer version of IDL. I believe there already exists WebIDL bindings for > > C++, JS, and Rust, and extending it to Java or Python would not be a > > challenging task. The only complexity is that the WebIDL bindings does > not > > use a grand-central dispatch mechanism like XPConnect, but that merely > > means that adding new bindings requires writing a code generator and > > feeding all the interfaces through it instead of implementing several > > customized dispatch mechanisms. Not that PyXPCOM or JavaXPCOM have worked > > for the past several years. > > The core issue is WebIDL is not usable in non-gecko code yet, I didn't see > any example in thunderbird source tree, but I see lots of XPCOM codes. So I > do not have any clue how to using WebIDL in thunderbird world > You would certainly need to blaze this trail. But it's certainly possible (given that you're willing to fork mozilla-central), and I guarantee it will be more tractable than rewriting XPConnect with JS-CTypes. > > > > > > > -- > > Joshua Cranmer > > Thunderbird and DXR developer > > Source code archæologist > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > > > > -- > 此致 > 礼 > 罗勇刚 > Yours > sincerely, > Yonggang Luo > _______________________________________________ > 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
