The decoder is built inside libxul.so. I have two apks from fennec34 and fennec35 and both have a libxul of around 15mb (15595310)
In my previous tests only pocketsphinx lib adds around 2mb. It is too much, separate apks are better solution than in main libxul On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Kelly Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > >What's the behavior of the API when there are no engines available? > > When there are no engines available, the API is useless. So, if no engine > is flagged to be installed, the API itself should not be installed. > > >How much of an impact on compiled size and omni.ja does the existence of > the API itself have? > > With the API omni.ja is 6449434 Bytes without it's 6449000 Bytes a > difference of about 434 Bytes. > > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Richard Newman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the email! >> >> nalexander should weigh in on the particular build approach, but you're >> absolutely right that we need tight control over the inclusion of large >> libraries and assets. >> >> Those three flags seem like a good starting point to me. >> >> What's the behavior of the API when there are no engines available? How >> much of an impact on compiled size and omni.ja does the existence of the >> API itself have? >> >> Ta, >> >> -R >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Kelly Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We would like some feedback on build flags for the Web Speech API >>> installation. >>> >>> More specifically, we are planning to land an initial version of the Web >>> Speech API[1] into Geko. However, due to a number of factors, model size >>> being one of them, we plan to introduce various build flags which >>> install/do not install parts of the Web Speech API for various build >>> targets. >>> >>> Our current plan for Fennec is as follows: >>> >>> 1. Introduce a flag to control installation of the Web Speech API >>> 2. Introduce a flag to control installation of Pocketsphinx[2], the >>> STT/TTS engine. >>> 3. Introduce a script to allow installation of models, allowing >>> developers to test the Web Speech API (They can test once they've made a >>> build with the previous two flags on) >>> >>> The question is: Is this a good plan for Fennec? Should there be >>> more/less fine grade control for installation there? >>> >>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/webspeechapi.html >>> [2] http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mobile-firefox-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > mobile-firefox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev > >
_______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
