-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 11:39 AM -0800 2/19/01, Brendan Eich wrote:
>In principle, I support this move, because xpcom is too big and
>bloated, and strings are more primitive that almost everything else
>in xpcom. However, I'm not sure whether this has had the newsgroup
>propose/discuss/argue cycle it needs, with repeated rinsing. Also,
>what about adding another DLL to the pot, does that make for
>unwanted costs? Can we build flexibly enough that mozilla/string
>can stand alone, but optionally aggregate its objects into some
>already-built, or common-to-reduce-per-library-overhead,
>DLL/DSO/SharedLibrary?
>
>If I'm behind on newsgroup reading, please point me to the thread.
>Otherwise scc please start one.
My bad. This has been on my plate so long I didn't think to vet it to
the newsgroups. I'll post this there.
For those just tuning in, the bug in question is:
"Move string code out into its own lib"
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
The plan is that strings will build, under mozilla, as a static
library which is then linked into xpcom; which, in turn, continues to
export string functionality as before. This provides a minimal impact
to mozilla. But now that strings are in their own library, they will
have additional targets as shared libraries for stand-alone builds.
Of course 3rd parties can use the static targets as well.
More work will be required to make the strings library build
standalone, e.g., handling assertions portably without xpcom, but
using the xpcom assertion mechanism when built with mozilla, etc.
______________________________________________________________________
Scott Collins <http://ScottCollins.net/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.2
Comment: get my key at <http://ScottCollins.net/#key>
iQA/AwUBOpF4ffGmojMuVn+fEQLZwwCgsP8jQ+Sx8TjkexD3IaaLgxoxYjsAn0p3
b2h1YtHvozXiTHTX0O9E/vx1
=6I0G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
