As a XULRunner app developer, as long as firefox -app application.ini continues to work I think I could learn to live with this.
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:34:54 PM UTC-5, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > > > Let's face it: xulrunner is hardly maintained, we barely build and test > > it on automation, and the result is that it is often broken for long > > periods of time. > > > > I propose that we just stop pretending, and terminate xulrunner, > > considering the following: > > - Xulrunner is lagging behind Firefox: DLL block list, startup telemetry, > > etc. > > - Since bug 755724, running firefox -app application.ini is 99% the same > > as running xulrunner application.ini, except for a few details that > > should be considered bugs. Before that bug, it was quite different, > > as browser-specific files were available to the xul application. > > - There is no reason we can't generate the sdk from firefox instead of > > xulrunner. Moreover that would make firefox-specific interfaces > > available in the sdk that aren't currently (which may or may not be a > > good thing, arguably) > > - We could include the xulrunner and xulrunner-stub executables as part > > of firefox. xulrunner-stub is small and self-contained, and xulrunner > > could be replaced by something that calls firefox -app. Or we could > > make the firefox executable check under what name it's called and act > > accordingly. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
