[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM, cpu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 2, 6:09 pm, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I like the idea of fixing test_shell and not trying to convert >> everything at first. >> >> But don't work on 5025, I think it's wasted time. It's a non-essential >> plugin. >> > > .. >> There's zero reference to WMIUtil in the code so to fix 5021, it's >> probably faster to just delete the source file. > > .. I see: src\chrome\installer\util\google_chrome_distribution.cc > (71): WMIProcessUtil::Launch(command, &pid); Oops, still, it'd be easier to just move the source file in src/chrome/installer then. M-A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Dec 2, 6:09 pm, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like the idea of fixing test_shell and not trying to convert > everything at first. > > But don't work on 5025, I think it's wasted time. It's a non-essential plugin. > .. > There's zero reference to WMIUtil in the code so to fix 5021, it's > probably faster to just delete the source file. .. I see: src\chrome\installer\util\google_chrome_distribution.cc (71): WMIProcessUtil::Launch(command, &pid); > > M-A > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > BTW I changed all these bugs to "Type-Cleanup" which is a good way for > > people to find the set of work required to move towards this > > objective. > > > -Ben > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that > >> people can build it with Visual C++ Express. > > >> While rewriting our UI code is unlikely to happen overnight, I was > >> thinking that it should be possible to at least build test_shell > >> without ATL. Unfortunately, we have a handful of dependencies in base > >> and in our webkit port. Some of these are trivial to fix, others not > >> so much. I filed a handful of bugs against the ones that I found, so > >> if you've got some downtime or are looking for a small focused bit of > >> work to bite off, take a look at one of these: > > >> base/wmi_util.cc - bug 5021 - lots of COM > >> webkit/tools/test_shell - bug 5022 - a few small issues > >> webkit/default_plugin - bug 5023 - UI for handling plugin installation > >> webkit/activex_shim - bug 5025 - more COM > >> tools/grit - string table .res files generated with ATL dependencies > > >> Erik --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
Awesome :) On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > I know, it's being worked on. > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ian Fette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> What I'm planning is to add "gcl try --patchset 123" to try a patch > >> residing on rietveld. Not awesome but that limits the main issues and > >> improves usability. > >> > >> Stay tuned. > >> > >> We can't open the try server for various reasons. > > > > Untrusted content is one of the reasons why our infrastructure is running > in > > jail. I think we should just do it, at least for people with commit > access. > > (If someone has commit access, they could just commit the malicious > patch, > > and then it will run in all the buildbots, and on many developer machines > > inside Google anyways). > > > >> > >> M-A > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by > a > >> >> malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our > test > >> >> environment, which is not good. > >> > > >> > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also > an > >> > issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try > >> > servers.) > >> > If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the > >> > machine > >> > goes down, I think we're doing well enough. > >> >> > >> >> We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have > >> >> write > >> >> access to the repository. > >> > > >> > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. > >> > PK > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
I know, it's being worked on. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ian Fette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> What I'm planning is to add "gcl try --patchset 123" to try a patch >> residing on rietveld. Not awesome but that limits the main issues and >> improves usability. >> >> Stay tuned. >> >> We can't open the try server for various reasons. > > Untrusted content is one of the reasons why our infrastructure is running in > jail. I think we should just do it, at least for people with commit access. > (If someone has commit access, they could just commit the malicious patch, > and then it will run in all the buildbots, and on many developer machines > inside Google anyways). > >> >> M-A >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a >> >> malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test >> >> environment, which is not good. >> > >> > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also an >> > issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try >> > servers.) >> > If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the >> > machine >> > goes down, I think we're doing well enough. >> >> >> >> We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have >> >> write >> >> access to the repository. >> > >> > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. >> > PK >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > What I'm planning is to add "gcl try --patchset 123" to try a patch > residing on rietveld. Not awesome but that limits the main issues and > improves usability. > > Stay tuned. > > We can't open the try server for various reasons. > Untrusted content is one of the reasons why our infrastructure is running in jail. I think we should just do it, at least for people with commit access. (If someone has commit access, they could just commit the malicious patch, and then it will run in all the buildbots, and on many developer machines inside Google anyways). > > M-A > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a > >> malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test > >> environment, which is not good. > > > > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also an > > issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try > > servers.) > > If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the > machine > > goes down, I think we're doing well enough. > >> > >> We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have > write > >> access to the repository. > > > > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. > > PK > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
What I'm planning is to add "gcl try --patchset 123" to try a patch residing on rietveld. Not awesome but that limits the main issues and improves usability. Stay tuned. We can't open the try server for various reasons. M-A On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a >> malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test >> environment, which is not good. > > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also an > issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try > servers.) > If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the machine > goes down, I think we're doing well enough. >> >> We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have write >> access to the repository. > > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. > PK > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > The mozilla try server page says that : > > "The try server is an easy way to test a patch on all 3 platforms without > committing to a repository. You need an LDAP and CVS account to access it." > Clearly, I don't know WTF. PK --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a >> malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test >> environment, which is not good. >> > > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also an > issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try > servers.) > The mozilla try server page says that : "The try server is an easy way to test a patch on all 3 platforms without committing to a repository. You need an LDAP and CVS account to access it." https://wiki.mozilla.org/Build:TryServer https://build.mozilla.org/sendchange.cgi Nicolas > > If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the machine > goes down, I think we're doing well enough. > > We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have write >> access to the repository. >> > > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. > > PK > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a > malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test > environment, which is not good. > Yes, I think that's the issue we'd have to deal with. (This is also an issue Mozilla has to deal with, as they have publicly-accessible try servers.) If we can make it so that the worst thing that happens is that the machine goes down, I think we're doing well enough. We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have write > access to the repository. > I think a solution with this limit is not very useful. PK --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Evan Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Will the try servers become public? >> > > I didn't realize they weren't. Lame, it would be quite useful if they > were, completely aside from this WTL issue. Who can help figure out how to > do this? > Opening the try servers externally is tricky. If the patch is sent by a malicious users, it means that they can run arbitrary code in our test environment, which is not good. We would need to limit the scope to only the people who already have write access to the repository. And since they currently all have internal access, it was not a priority. But... we are looking at granting write access to external contributors really soon.. so maybe it's time to reconsider. Unfortunately the current approach does not really have any notion of access control. Nicolas > My Windows knowledge is about ten years rusty, but WTL is free, right? >> So there's no need (at least in the "dropping dependency on expensive >> software" sense) to remove it. > > > Yes, WTL is free. The problems with VS Express aren't WTL's anyway, but > the underlying ATL code, which is also freely available (as part of various > SDKs including one we supply in third_party). Newer versions of VS Pro ship > a newer ATL that's more tightly integrated than the one in the SDK, but we > don't need it (and I'm not sure how well we'd work with it, given how little > we've done with VS 2008). > > PK > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Evan Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will the try servers become public? > I didn't realize they weren't. Lame, it would be quite useful if they were, completely aside from this WTL issue. Who can help figure out how to do this? My Windows knowledge is about ten years rusty, but WTL is free, right? > So there's no need (at least in the "dropping dependency on expensive > software" sense) to remove it. Yes, WTL is free. The problems with VS Express aren't WTL's anyway, but the underlying ATL code, which is also freely available (as part of various SDKs including one we supply in third_party). Newer versions of VS Pro ship a newer ATL that's more tightly integrated than the one in the SDK, but we don't need it (and I'm not sure how well we'd work with it, given how little we've done with VS 2008). PK --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that >> people can build it with Visual C++ Express. > > According to various webpages whose instructions I have not personally > tested (e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/wtl/WTLExpress.aspx ), this is > already possible with a couple of extremely minor tweaks. If we cared, we > could probably provide a script to make these tweaks. (Personally, I don't > care. The Mac/Linux ports and tryserver cover most of the cases where I > think a contributor without a paid version of Visual Studio would be willing > and likely to make contributions. I don't see huge demand for VS Express > from people doing anything more than tire-kicking.) Will the try servers become public? We've had a number of contributors who have access to Linux (where everything's free) and Windows (because it came with their computer) but who still can't test their patches on Windows because of the VC2005 dep. > I am opposed to removing ATL and WTL. Ben and I have never agreed on this > and probably will continue to disagree. There are a number of cases where > WTL makes tricky-to-get-right code noticeably simpler and more readable, and > I have objected to (and been overruled on) cases where we've removed it and > made our code longer and hairier. There were a number of message-forwarding > problems in our code long ago that never would have occurred if we'd just > used WTL properly instead of being stubborn and trying to write our own > code. My Windows knowledge is about ten years rusty, but WTL is free, right? So there's no need (at least in the "dropping dependency on expensive software" sense) to remove it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that > people can build it with Visual C++ Express. According to various webpages whose instructions I have not personally tested (e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/wtl/WTLExpress.aspx ), this is already possible with a couple of extremely minor tweaks. If we cared, we could probably provide a script to make these tweaks. (Personally, I don't care. The Mac/Linux ports and tryserver cover most of the cases where I think a contributor without a paid version of Visual Studio would be willing and likely to make contributions. I don't see huge demand for VS Express from people doing anything more than tire-kicking.) I am opposed to removing ATL and WTL. Ben and I have never agreed on this and probably will continue to disagree. There are a number of cases where WTL makes tricky-to-get-right code noticeably simpler and more readable, and I have objected to (and been overruled on) cases where we've removed it and made our code longer and hairier. There were a number of message-forwarding problems in our code long ago that never would have occurred if we'd just used WTL properly instead of being stubborn and trying to write our own code. I am not necessarily opposed to replacing WTL with a set of equally-expressive macros of our own, but writing these macros and catching the edge cases is, depending on the case, somewhere between tedious and tricky. And when a perfectly good library someone else wrote already exists and is already in our code, I don't understand the motivation. PK --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But don't work on 5025, I think it's wasted time. It's a non-essential plugin. oops. I had a typo. That was actually 5024. My original thought was to remove it as well, but I was surprised that there were a bunch of callouts to the code, testing for mime types, etc. Perhaps the right fix for that one is to make it a compile-time option. Erik --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
I like the idea of fixing test_shell and not trying to convert everything at first. But don't work on 5025, I think it's wasted time. It's a non-essential plugin. There's zero reference to WMIUtil in the code so to fix 5021, it's probably faster to just delete the source file. M-A On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW I changed all these bugs to "Type-Cleanup" which is a good way for > people to find the set of work required to move towards this > objective. > > -Ben > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that >> people can build it with Visual C++ Express. >> >> While rewriting our UI code is unlikely to happen overnight, I was >> thinking that it should be possible to at least build test_shell >> without ATL. Unfortunately, we have a handful of dependencies in base >> and in our webkit port. Some of these are trivial to fix, others not >> so much. I filed a handful of bugs against the ones that I found, so >> if you've got some downtime or are looking for a small focused bit of >> work to bite off, take a look at one of these: >> >> base/wmi_util.cc - bug 5021 - lots of COM >> webkit/tools/test_shell - bug 5022 - a few small issues >> webkit/default_plugin - bug 5023 - UI for handling plugin installation >> webkit/activex_shim - bug 5025 - more COM >> tools/grit - string table .res files generated with ATL dependencies >> >> >> Erik >> >> > >> > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
BTW I changed all these bugs to "Type-Cleanup" which is a good way for people to find the set of work required to move towards this objective. -Ben On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that > people can build it with Visual C++ Express. > > While rewriting our UI code is unlikely to happen overnight, I was > thinking that it should be possible to at least build test_shell > without ATL. Unfortunately, we have a handful of dependencies in base > and in our webkit port. Some of these are trivial to fix, others not > so much. I filed a handful of bugs against the ones that I found, so > if you've got some downtime or are looking for a small focused bit of > work to bite off, take a look at one of these: > > base/wmi_util.cc - bug 5021 - lots of COM > webkit/tools/test_shell - bug 5022 - a few small issues > webkit/default_plugin - bug 5023 - UI for handling plugin installation > webkit/activex_shim - bug 5025 - more COM > tools/grit - string table .res files generated with ATL dependencies > > > Erik > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: removing ATL dependencies from Chromium
+1 for removing ATL. I think it tends to obscure what's going on and we have developed many of our own wrappers for functionality that provides. My plan was to slowly remove it from ChromeViews over time. (We don't use it for nearly as much anymore). People are welcome to pitch in and help. -Ben On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Erik Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be nice to remove ATL/WTL dependencies from Chromium so that > people can build it with Visual C++ Express. > > While rewriting our UI code is unlikely to happen overnight, I was > thinking that it should be possible to at least build test_shell > without ATL. Unfortunately, we have a handful of dependencies in base > and in our webkit port. Some of these are trivial to fix, others not > so much. I filed a handful of bugs against the ones that I found, so > if you've got some downtime or are looking for a small focused bit of > work to bite off, take a look at one of these: > > base/wmi_util.cc - bug 5021 - lots of COM > webkit/tools/test_shell - bug 5022 - a few small issues > webkit/default_plugin - bug 5023 - UI for handling plugin installation > webkit/activex_shim - bug 5025 - more COM > tools/grit - string table .res files generated with ATL dependencies > > > Erik > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
