UXP runtime environment? Topic is solved

Discussions about the development and maturation of the Unified XUL Platform (UXP).
Warning: may contain highly-technical topics.

Moderator: trava90

Post Reply
User avatar
djgpp
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 59
Joined: 2021-01-26, 05:39

UXP runtime environment?

Post by djgpp » 2021-04-21, 12:25

The idea come from Java, of course. It's similar to xulrunner, but not the same. Instead of packaging Pale Moon or Basilisk as a whole tarball including UXP itself, we should rather package only the actual thing, into a format similiar to a JAR file, e.g: a .XPA archive (the idea come from XPI, of course).

We will run the thing like this:

uxp_run -xpa palemoon.xpa

or like this if you extracted the .XPA archive:

uxp_run -app palemoon/application.ini

Please let me know what you think about this idea.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 9721
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: UXP runtime environment?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-04-21, 12:57

2005 called they want their aborted concept back.

The REASON this couldn't be a thing aside from the ease of using a "private xulrunner stub" as UXP Applications do is that following Mozilla's scheme of putting everything they can in one dll file and one or two omnijar files means old style compontization at installation is not possible. MailNews Core for instance cannot be simply built and linked as a shared lib anymore and that goes for MOST of the codebase.. it nearly all gets rolled into libxul which would make a generic runtime for specific applications not possible without literally building everything all the time no matter if the target application needs it or not.

Now specifically of the practical effect for Pale Moon or other UXP Applications.. It is NOT AT ALL EVER REASONABLE TO EXPECT A USER TO HAVE TO USE COMMAND LINE SWITCHES. All your wants and desires were already done then destroyed by Mozilla over a decade ago. While it would be nice to bring them back it isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and having it be as such. It would take a whole new round of re-archecting how things are built and several hundred thousand inter-dependencies in the code to resolve this and make it as flexible as it was in the old days.

We simply do not have time to do this shit as much as we would love to. So we have what we have in the way we have it and we just do the best we can with it.

You should look up how the original full on XPInstall worked on UDN just to see what Mozilla trashed. As a tidbit provided here: <em:type>1</em:type> WAS the XPInstall type for Application. Even back in the xpfe days it was originally designed to do what you are asking for well before xulrunner became a thing.

So how many more threads do you intend on creating that take time away from us doing our jobs just to answer what YOU CAN LOOK UP FOR YOUR OWN DAMN SELF?!
The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Image

User avatar
djgpp
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 59
Joined: 2021-01-26, 05:39

Re: UXP runtime environment?

Post by djgpp » 2021-04-21, 13:50

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2021-04-21, 12:57
So how many more threads do you intend on creating that take time away from us doing our jobs just to answer what YOU CAN LOOK UP FOR YOUR OWN DAMN SELF?!
No more unneeded new threads. You have my promise.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 9721
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: UXP runtime environment?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-04-21, 13:56

Just keep the theoretical and conceptual bullshit to a minimum and TRY and find your answers from what is out there. If you have a SPECIFIC question of practical concern then do ask it.
The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Image

Post Reply