Subj : Re: XPConnect/Spidermonkey or ActiveX/npruntime for JS scripting of plug-ins
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.xpcom,netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : Phil McLachlan
Date : Thu Aug 18 2005 04:24 pm

In case, anyone else is looking for the answer, I have gotten a response on 
mozillaZine, which seems to have a quicker turn-around than Usenet groups.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=307374

"Phil McLachlan" <pmclachlan@.nospam.vizible.com> wrote in message 
news:ddg3ai$map3@ripley.netscape.com...
> "Phil McLachlan" <pmclachlan@.nospam.vizible.com> wrote in message 
> news:dd8m5o$ok62@ripley.netscape.com...
>> We are investigating using XPCOM as a framework for our project.  Our 
>> application will run as a stand-alone executable, and it will be used as 
>> a plug-in within browsers: Mozilla, Safari, and IE.  We require JS 
>> scripting of our application, so packaging Spidermonkey with our 
>> application seems appealing.  In this case, we could use XPConnect to 
>> perform the integration.
>>
>> I've noticed that XPCOM's plug-in API (XPConnect?) has been replaced by 
>> npruntime.  Is this because plug-in writers are moving towards using 
>> ActiveX integration in IE with npruntime wrappers for the other browsers? 
>> I reckon this would eliminate having to package a JS engine with a 
>> plug-in, which is currently the approach used by Macromedia Flash and 
>> Adobe Acrobat Reader. On the other hand, writing the npruntime wrappers 
>> could become labour intensive.  Is there a npruntime to ActiveX bridge? 
>> What is the recommended approach for developing rich environment browser 
>> plug-ins?  It would be nice, if we could also use a JS engine with our 
>> stand-alone executable.
>
> I guess using XPCOM, XPConnect, and embedded Spidermonkey  is a better 
> option for us, because it allows us to reuse the JS in our stand-alone 
> executable.  However, XPConnect being depricated in favour of npruntime 
> scares me a bit.  Is anyone using npruntime to script their application 
> with embedded Spidermonkey, or is that not the intent?
>
>> Also, in this context, which is better to use: standalone XPCOM or XPCOM 
>> with the entire Mozilla source tree?  If possible, I imagine the 
>> standalone implementation would be more desirable.  Is XPCOM packaged as 
>> a separate product that you can get frozen stable interfaces and 
>> implementations for? Is there documentation for the various Mozilla XPCOM 
>> libraries?  I read the standalone is not compatible with the one in the 
>> Mozilla tree.  Why is this, and should this be a concern?
>>
>> Assuming standalone XPCOM is the way to go, can someone point me to 
>> directions on how to download it and use it with XPConnect/Spidermonkey?
>
> Okay, I've found the Gecko SDK, which comes compiled and packaged for the 
> various Mozilla releases.  This seems to work well, as opposed to 
> standalone XPCOM, which seems to have become broken in the Mozilla build 
> in the past due to neglect.
>
>> Thanks for any advice.
>
>

.