binary XPCOM components
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:02 pm
Since you've brought it up, Killing Binary XPCOM in Add-ons. Is JavaScript Fit?, & since I've been meaning to ask ...
Is my (neophyte) description somewhat accurate?
And then there is the flashgot.exe. And that differs (& it is different) from a binary XPCOM component, how? In that it is a totally stand-alone application, not reliant on anything "Mozilla" (libraries or whatever), hence you have no requirement to update it with (as is the case now) each new (FF) release.
Similarly I noted that Fireshot will no longer work without a "binary component" update.
Is my (neophyte) description somewhat accurate?
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r260045 ... ~start=140what is this "XPCOM component"?
From what I gather, some extensions use DLL's (essentially an EXE, but in this case linked with "Mozilla code"). DLL's, long known for "DLL Hell", seemingly also give Mozilla headaches. So Mozilla is looking to do away with them, providing JavaScript constructs as an alternative. Due to the "hell", Mozilla is looking to do away with XPCOM components (DLLs, so less hell). During this conversion period, Mozilla is specifically breaking DLLs with each new release. So if you want your extension (or more likely, plugin, like say from Eset's Email scanner), you (Eset) needs to update its DLL (or change from DLL to JavaScript) upon a new release. And Mozilla wants that so that Eset, in case they fail to update, they do not break Mozilla.
And then there is the flashgot.exe. And that differs (& it is different) from a binary XPCOM component, how? In that it is a totally stand-alone application, not reliant on anything "Mozilla" (libraries or whatever), hence you have no requirement to update it with (as is the case now) each new (FF) release.
Similarly I noted that Fireshot will no longer work without a "binary component" update.