Doug Turner wrote: > The real question is what you want libxpcom to do? if you want it to > support the mozilla applications, then we are pretty close to 800k. if > you just want it to do COM w/o reflection, you can trim a huge amount > out of it.
Well I wanted to use xpcom / xpconnect to replace my own module framework and the need to write wrappers for spidermonkey manually. But then I would have to generate the IDL and probably xpcom wrappers. (for example I am wrapping opengl) > However, xpcom provides quite a bit of functionality and wrappers of > lower level services: file abstraction, threading, many data > structures, etc. It seems i would get: portable components: file, sockets? portable module loading On the other hand my own solution works for now and is quite simple: Wrapper around dlopen functionality (libltdl) for the module loading and some small wrappers around other portable native libraries. It is just that duplicating existing work is somehow .... Jens _______________________________________________ Mozilla-xpcom mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-xpcom
