In article <94vefl$d2d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Hammond"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <94sev8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Braden McDaniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you're serious about increasing the likelihood of that scenario
>> coming to pass, make the code interesting to people working on things
>> other than browsers.
>
> It is! There are a number of companies using xpcom for projects other
> than browsers, including my employer. There is still work to be done
> here, but declaring it is "not interesting" smacks of "someone do all my
> work for me".
Contrary to your implication here, I didn't "declare" anything "not
interesting" without qualification. Whether you care to acknowledge it
or not, lots of developers won't change course and start working on
making XPCOM usable to them just because they could use some of the
functionality it provides. They would prefer to work on their own
project, even to the point of creating a customized solution, rather
than face the XPCOM learning curve *and* have to deal with making it
functional for their needs. Derogate it as NIH if it makes you happy, but
it's still a reality that XPCOM development needs to deal with.
> ActiveState went into this project with its eyes wide
> open, with a commitment to contribute back any changes we can make to
> further our goals without diluting Mozilla's or Netscapes. Witness the
> Python XPCOM bindings, and within a day of release, someone contributed
> patches back to ensure it builds with stand-alone XPCOM.
>
> If you dont find it interesting, plenty of companies with more foresight
> will simply roll on without complaining (ie, will actually be doing
> something constructive!)
Okay, Mark: what's *your* plan for dealing with dependency on XPCOM? If
it's "make our users install all of Mozilla" or "ship a specialized
version of XPCOM with our app", then either you have an application that
is sufficiently specialized that you can afford to make your users endure
excessive silliness or you do not have the foresight you claim.
>> There are lots of projects out there that need similar solutions to
>> some of the problems that Mozilla is solving, and they aren't
>> necessarily Web browsers.
>
> Yep - and many of them are working with xpcom today!
Are you deliberately dismissing the fact that many of them are not, or
are you genuinely unaware of this factoid?
> Dont forget to wave as they pass you by!
Uh huh. XPCOM still loses. That's the point. Whether you or I am using
it is not.
--
Braden McDaniel It is hard to know if nothing is /
http://endoframe.com actually nothing
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And thus difficult to know if a policy /
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] of doing nothing is successful
-- Radiohead
