On 09/08/2010 15:28, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Also, to address your first question, please see http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2005-07-29/the-testing-matrix/ for why we strongly discourage people from trying to make the "smallest possible" version of Mozilla, rather than using the standard tested version.
Whilst the default build settings for Firefox may perfectly suit the needs of the Firefox team, they do not neccessarily fit well with embedding hosts. Shared runtime libraries being a case in point. Surely non-standard builds can be tested in exactly the same way as any standard Mozilla Firefox release?
WRT 'why does this matter to you'. Religious issue perhaps. I would always opt for the smallest possible installation footprint. Static linking over dynamic to ensure minimum version hassles, with runtime support files in a single checksummed, versioned, archive. Much simpler installation/removal and much less work to verify when problems are encountered.
From the POV of development then a single static library, build configuration controlled by a VS project file, makes it *much* simpler to integrate FF. And let's not even start on debugging/spelunking the code.
HTH _______________________________________________ dev-embedding mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-embedding
