In article <950n6f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Braden McDaniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Contrary to your implication here, I didn't "declare" anything "not
> interesting" without qualification. Whether you care to acknowledge it
> or not, lots of developers won't change course and start working on
> making XPCOM usable to them just because they could use some of the
> functionality it provides. They would prefer to work on their own
> project, even to the point of creating a customized solution, rather
> than face the XPCOM learning curve *and* have to deal with making it
> functional for their needs.
Fine. I doubt anyone will miss them!
> Okay, Mark: what's *your* plan for dealing with dependency on
> XPCOM? If it's "make our users install all of Mozilla" or
> "ship a specialized version of XPCOM with our app", then
First, the plan is to get our app to a state where we are happy to call
it a V1. Then, we roll out sleves up and move towards the second
stated option - except I personally have found the Mozilla guys very
helpful, and very keen to accept high-quality patches - so it wont
be "a specialized version of XPCOM", but will include the contributions
we make back to XPCOM, and then available for all.
> >> There are lots of projects out there that need similar solutions to
> >> some of the problems that Mozilla is solving, and they aren't
> >> necessarily Web browsers.
> >
> > Yep - and many of them are working with xpcom today!
>
> Are you deliberately dismissing the fact that many of them are not, or
> are you genuinely unaware of this factoid?
The same is true for _many_ technologies. What is your point here?
Are you suggesting that everyone with similar goals must use XPCOM, or
it has failed?
But more to the point, as you taking it upon yourself to speak for all
these companies? We have no idea why they chose not to use XPCOM, so
we should let them speak for themsleves.You have made your position
crystal clear, but let others speak for themselves.
> > Dont forget to wave as they pass you by!
>
> Uh huh. XPCOM still loses. That's the point. Whether you or I am
> using it is not.
No - my point is that people _are_ using it, and I don't believe it
will lose.
I really dont know what you are getting at here. Some companies are
starting to use XPCOM, and are contributing patches back. Others
(realtively) silently decide to pass it by for their own good reasons
(although I have no idea what they are replacing it with that is
better!).
Then there seems to be a 3rd class of people who complain about it, and
expect everyone to pitch in for them - when they should make one of the
decisions above, and should they decide to go with it, roll their
sleeves up and jump in.
I'm not going to continue this thread any more - I have some XPCOM work
long overdue, and this thread certainly isn't being constructive in any
way towards that goal.
Mark.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
