In the long run, the code probably belongs in netwerk/,
but this would need to be approved by the Necko module owner.
In the short run, it may be better to let it sit and bake for a
while as an extension. Although it needs to be reviewed for
code quality by the Necko folks, it should need approval only
from mozilla.org.
It is true that if extensions/ipc is not turned on by default, the whole
exercise would be pointless. So I expect it will be added to the
list of default extensions, rather like chatzilla. However, I believe that
if the compilation of an extension fails, the build continues without
the extension (I haven't checked this; could someone confirm it?)
If and when mozilla code outside extensions/ starts using IPC, it would
make sense to move it all into netwerk/.
Saravanan
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> R. Saravanan wrote:
>
> > RFE bug 68702 has been filed to import the IPC code into the directory
> > mozilla/extensions/ipc (this will not affect the rest of mozilla in any way).
>
> General: IMO, not everything that fulfills the statement in the brackets
> should be in extensions/, for the same reason as Mailnews in not in
> extensions/.
>
> Specific: This code, both the IPC module and the generic protocol
> handler, are pretty basic services. It is likely that in the future,
> other code will depend on it. Maybe even code that lives outside
> extensions/. In that case, we either
> - couldn't use these services
> - need to move the code/service
> - have to give up on extensions/ being optional
>
> So, assuming the code is good, I suggest a more central place, e.g.
> netwerk/ for the protocol handler.
