The interface looks good Doug. I'm not an OS expert so I'm not sure how
far we want to go with this interface but I do have one comment. If
we're not going to deprecate the nsIFile::Spawn then spawn in this
context might be confusing. How's about execute? That's what a script
writer would use in XPInstall.
-Don
Doug Turner wrote:
> I think that this would be a good interface to have. Do you and Samir
> want to put together an interface which has all the basic attributes of a
> process? Don't worry too much about where it belongs in xpcom, that will
> come during the implemention.
>
> I think that we may also need some kind of nsIProcessService which can
> allow one to cycle through the process list and return nsIProcess's.
>
> I have attached a first draft of the nsIProcess idl. It still needs alot
> of doxygen love, please comment.
>
>
> Don Bragg wrote:
>
>> Hi Brendan,
>> Your suggestion about the creation of nsIProcess in lieu of changing
>> Spawn brings up a question. Where would nsIProcess belong? Samir
>> Gehani and I were discussing this and a likely place is xpcom/threads.
>> I know that Scott Collins is the owner of the overall XPCOM but do you
>> know if there's someone who should own this specifically? Or, if you
>> don't think it belongs in threads where would you suggest?
>>
>> I want to make sure all the correct players are involved here.
>>
>> Thanks Brendan,
>> -Don
>>
>> --
>> The cardiologist's diet: If it tastes good, spit it out.
>> nsIProcess.idl
>>
>> Content-Type:
>>
>> application/x-unknown-content-type-idlfile
>> Content-Encoding:
>>
>> base64
>>
>>
--
If you can't say something nice, say something surrealistic
