[sorry, sent this to john, meant for it to hit the list too].
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:50:51AM -0800, John Bandhauer wrote:
> Ari Heitner wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Ok. So there are a couple of things (conceivably; i'm expecting you to
> > tell which ones are wrong/dumb) that we could do to hack xptiIIM and
> > friends to support multiple locations for typelibs
> >
> > 1) Do the path thing you talked about; there will be a search path of
> > directories where typelibs may live. Requires significant restructuring
> > :). is the obviously right solution
>
> This is not huge, but means touching a number of places in xpti. It would
> inevitably consume a week to get this done, reviewed, and into the tree. I
> consider it the right thing to do in the long run. It is not currently a
> requirement for anything I (or my employers) need.
This is what I'd rather do. Presumably there will need to be
a) a way to get directories into the search path (should this be in prefs.js
or something? i don't know how that magic works). possibly also a
programmatic way to add search dirs, via a new function in
xptiInterfaceInfoManager?
b) the IIM just needs to aggragate everything in all search paths when it
builds working sets, right? I need to look more closely at this. But it
seems fairly straightforward -- rather than just asking for the components
dir when it builds lists of typelibs, it needs to go through all dirs. Does
it really need to be able to replace typelibs (i.e. have a meaningful order
on the search paths)?
>
> >
> > 2) Move the component directory. What if an embedding application could
> > jus say "Use *my* component directory instead of mozilla's". The mozilla
> > type f could be copied (or symlink'd; i'm ignoring possible evil
> > versioning goofup just want to know if it would work). Rather than just
> > looking in components xptiIIM (or whatever) would allow you to set a
> > different directory to look typelibs. Should be easy to implement,
> > right?
>
> This is what I'd do if I were you. I showed how in a previous post:
> news://news.mozilla.org/3A5233A7.9D8F66D0%40netscape.com
I'd just as soon not do this one. For the time being we're doing our own
complete private copy of mozilla. Better the grosser hack for the time
being, and take a bit longer to add the functionality we need for the long
term :)
...
sorry that was all very vague (maybe beyond understandable). this weekend
i'll try to look more closely at the IIM and come up with a better/more
specific feeling for the changes.
ari
