Jon Smirl wrote:
> I think the idea was more along the lines of having the Mozilla
> organization host xpcom.org. It's a marketing/presentation change, not
> a change of ownership. Right now XPCOM is buried inside the Mozilla
> browser project and very few people are aware that it can be used as a
> standalone tool. By giving XPCOM it's own identity it would have more
> of a chance to grow as a standalone platform. Something like
> xpcom.mozzila.org could work.
Again, metoo (tm). It would be more of a marketing/image change.
> Another issue: why is there a browser build of XPCOM and a standalone
> build of XPCOM? Couldn't there be just a single XPCOM? NSPR has a
> single version. There are only six XPCOM C files using
> XPCOM_STANDALONE. The differences look to be fairly small.
*Very* good point.
> Has anyone from the NSPR group talked to the Apache APR group? Is
> there any hope of avoiding two portable runtime efforts? Apache has
> split APR off into a standalone project for 2.0.
Crystal balling a bit, I would say that APR will probably get used a
bit, but not much more than NSPR, for a single reason: the "A" stands
for "Apache". I can hear people that will see this and think "APR is
Apache stuff, next!", just like some people might be thinking the same
right now about XPCOM and NSPR.
--
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and Unix.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
