>
>
>> I mean, we freeze nsIServiceManager. For those that need a helper
>> class , they can link to a seperate lib that give this to them. They
>> don't have to directly link to xpcom.
>
>
> Who "needs" a helper class? People are expected to access the
> component manager through the interface pointer we give them, and I
> think the only reason that people are using nsServiceManager:: right
> now is that we don't pass nsIServiceManager into
> nsIModule::getClassObject. Once we fix that -- which we get for free
> with the compmgr/servmgr merger, right? -- there will be no need for
> such use, just as there's no need for nsComponentManager:: to be
> frozen and supported
so, nsServiceManager adds the growing list of "things that people are
using that we shouldn't break and we don't want to support".
Actually, as of a few days ago, you could try to QI the
nsIComponentManager for the nsIServiceManager. Unless somone has
changed something in their tree, this should work..
