+1 for node here as well. Anything we can do to use tooling that is familiar to the broader web developer community is a win.
-Justin > On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Dale Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > +100 for using node and only xpcshell when required, when I have had to work > on build related issues, having to deal with the xpcshell node polyfill was a > nightmare. > >> On 23 November 2015 at 16:27, Fred Lin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Recently we have plenty of discussion around moving to the Next Generation >> Architecture. So I guess its the right time to ask some bold questions. >> >> I'd like to rise a cliche topic about our corner stone, the build script, >> which still use xpcshell as our main build tool. Lots of work is consumed by >> polyfilling the xpcshell api to work like node. I feel we shot our shoes to >> not use node directly. It slow the pace when our frontend developers need to >> take care of api/compatibility issues for xpcshell, while outside web >> developer could just pick and use those tools without brain. As the result, >> it move us away from outside web developers. >> >> Here are my 3 Questions (for different audience): >> >> 1. is it bother you when you can't use node in the main build procedure? >> 2. Is there still any concern that stop us switch from xpcshell to node? Or >> just use xpcshell when needed and use node for general build operation? >> 3. is it a significant effort to switch from xpcshell to node? >> >> -- >> Fred >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-fxos mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos > > _______________________________________________ > dev-fxos mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
