"R. Saravanan" wrote:
> Doug Turner wrote:
>
> > I think that the way this best can be intergrated into mozilla is that the process
> > related stuff be cleaned up and migrated into the nsIProcess interface in xpcom.
> > (http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/xpcom/threads/nsIProcess.idl). I am the
> > owner of this file, and would be happy to help with the oversight of these changes.
> >
>
> Sounds good to me. The IPC portion of Protozilla does logically belong to something
>like
> nsIProcess.
Okay. Sounds great! Can you merge your ipc stuff into xpcom and post a patch? I
also added some
comments to the bug report. Lets focus on getting this in. Others in mozilla may
benefit from
this.
> >
> > The second part is interesting. I believe that there are two things that we can
>do.
> > First we can see about getting this to be an extension. I do not believe that this
> > is a core protocol so it does not belong in necko. To address the mailto: lack of
> > support, I think that we should leverage what we have and specifically address this
> > protocol.
> >
>
> I would be happy to have the generic protocol handler portion of Protozilla stay as
>an
> extension, if that is the consensus. Protozilla is a strange beast, and I'm not
>quite sure where
> it fits in the grand scheme of Mozilla. However, if it were to be moved out of
>extensions, the
> logical place for it would somewhere in network/, because it is after all a protocol
>handler,
> which just happens to be completely generic!
Sure. But unlike other "optional" protocols (gopher, datetime, finger, ftp), this
generic module
really requires a UI. That is why I proposed extensions.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
