On 07/31/2013 01:25 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > Anyway, it would be easier to swallow the dependency on MFBT if it wasn't > so large (over 100 files now), if it tried to be (just) a polyfill for > missing standard library features, and if it could easily be used > independently of the Gecko build system. But, none of those constraints is > reasonable to place on MFBT, so that means MFBT isn't a good choice for > most things that need to also be able to be built independently of Gecko.
I disagree about independently-usable being an unreasonable constraint -- it seems totally reasonable for it to be a mini-embeddable thing, or something. But making it exactly that, without some of the hacks we have now for things like header-installation, etc., requires 1) time, 2) build-fu, and 3) understanding of the requirements of small little embeddable things, and I lack all these. On 07/31/2013 03:34 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > I am of the opinion that anything that is not a header file under MFBT > should be moved into mozglue. The end result would be the same (MFBT is > actually built into mozglue, except for js standalone builds, for which > this would require some changes), but it would allow MFBT to just be > used independently. Truly I don't care about the naming, but I've always envisioned mfbt as being headers and some compiled-into-objects files both, i.e. as the union of what you consider mfbt, and the compiled-in bits of it. Is there a good reason to have mozglue and what you consider mfbt to be two different things? Why not have both as a single thing, and make the whole thing more easily embeddable if necessary? Jeff _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
