595523 - Respond to implications of storage of packed extensions (bug 533038) for Gecko 2

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Other Applications :: DOM Inspector, defect)

Description

[Colby Russell :crussell (no longer Mozilla-ing)]

By mwu's blog post, we should do one of two things:
* use <em:unpack>true</em:unpack>
  This means we're responsible for the user experiencing slower cold startup.
* Stop packing the chrome into a jar
  Compressed jars result in higher memory overhead.  I don't think there's any
  reason to continue using jars if they're uncompressed.  If we're not using
  <em:unpack>true</em:unpack>, though, apparently we lose the window icon.

Comment 1

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

(In reply to comment #0)
> * Stop packing the chrome into a jar
>   Compressed jars result in higher memory overhead.  I don't think there's any
>   reason to continue using jars if they're uncompressed.  If we're not using
>   <em:unpack>true</em:unpack>, though, apparently we lose the window icon.
I don't think we use compressed jars (at least the build system doesn't to my knowledge).  Non-compressed jars still can give you a win, but maybe not once add-ons are left in their xpi form.

Comment 2

[Javi Rueda :javirid]

Since bug 646519 attachment 582609 [details] [diff] [review] landed, the extension is installed unpacked.

Comment 3

[Firefox Bug Husbandry Bot]

Bulk close. This component is no longer supported or maintained.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1499023

Comment 4

[Firefox Bug Husbandry Bot]

Bulk close. This component is no longer supported or maintained.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1499023