JavaXPCOM doesn't compile for XULRunner 2.0

NEW
Unassigned

Status

Core Graveyard
Java to XPCOM Bridge
7 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: Michael Spector, Unassigned)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

7 years ago
User-Agent:       Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en) Presto/2.6.30 Version/10.63
Build Identifier: 2.0

There's an error when compiling XULRunner with JavaXPCOM using the following configuration:

mk_add_options MOZ_CO_PROJECT=xulrunner
mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR=@TOPSRCDIR/obj-xulrunner

ac_add_options --enable-application=xulrunner
ac_add_options --enable-javaxpcom
ac_add_options --disable-crashreporter


Reproducible: Always
(Reporter)

Comment 1

7 years ago
Created attachment 491182 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch that fixes JavaXPCOM compilation

Comment 2

7 years ago
JavaXPCOM was intentionally disabled because it did not build and there was no maintainer. I would love to have a maintainer, although I want the code moved to a different repository (happy to have hg.mozilla.org/javaxpcom).

Updated

7 years ago
Assignee: nobody → jhpedemonte
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Embedding: Packaging → Java to XPCOM Bridge
Ever confirmed: true
QA Contact: packaging → xpcom-bridge
(Reporter)

Comment 3

7 years ago
Please look at the attached patch.

(In reply to comment #2)
> JavaXPCOM was intentionally disabled because it did not build and there was no
> maintainer. I would love to have a maintainer, although I want the code moved
> to a different repository (happy to have hg.mozilla.org/javaxpcom).
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Duplicate of this bug: 647910

Comment 5

7 years ago
Michael:

Thank you very much.  Beautiful effort.

Bobby:

I notice this bug has been around since November,
i.e., when Firefox 4.0 was just a glimmer in Mozilla's eyes.

1. How come the fix has not been applied to the recent, final release
of Firefox 4.0 ?

2. What does "JavaXPCOM was intentionally disabled ..." mean?

If that's somehow official (whatever that means in Mozilla circles),
how come 
2.1 './configure' doesn't jump at you to let you know?
and/or
2.2 the "--enable-javaxpcon" is not disabled in compile?

It would save a lot of people a lot of aggravation.

BTW How can somebody make the connection between this Bug
(for XULrunner at some Firefox-3.6.x level) and mine (for Firefox-4.0)?
Say, in March, at the 4.0 launch time.

-- Alex (the proud owner of Bug 647910 - if only for a fleeting moment)

Updated

4 years ago
Assignee: jhpedemonte → nobody
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.