jon, I agree with out 100%, but I do not think that freezing some fundemental APIs prevents us from decoupling later. Jon Smirl wrote: > Another issue for me is modularity of XPCOM. > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66759 > > Could XPCOM be reworked so that XPCOM Standalone is what Mozilla uses? The > main linkage seems to be with INTL code. Should this dependency be moved out > of XPCOM and put somewhere else? If XPCOM brings in INTL, INTL brings in > everything else, and you have to ship the browser just to get to XPCOM. > Maybe the right answer of this is to bring a small piece of INTL into XPCOM. > > -- > > Jon Smirl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Mike Shaver
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Jon Smirl
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Chris Seawood
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Christopher Blizzard
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Rick Potts
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Dan Mosedale
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Mike Shaver
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Mike Shaver
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Mike Shaver
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Chris Seawood
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Adam Lock
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Rick Potts
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Wan-Teh Chang
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Sean Echevarria
- Re: Freezing Embedding Interfaces... Doug Turner
