'libxul' naming

Darin Fisher darin at meer.net
Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:53:24 -0800

One point I didn't see highlighted on any of the resulting threads is 
the fact that the name of this library is really just an implementation 
detail.  Our interface to embedders and component authors is still 
libxpcom.so / xpcom.dll just as it always has been.  The uber library 
(libxul) is just an implementation detail.  Now, we may end up adding 
extra frozen entry points to help embedders (stuff related to getting 
GTK initialized properly, etc.), but that is a side-detail.  The point 
of libxul is to make the GRE more efficient, thus paving the way to 
actually using the GRE in our mainline products.

As a matter of reducing confusion for developers using our technology, 
I'd be happy if we stuck with the name GRE / Gecko Runtime.


Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> I don't like the name 'libxul'. Most embedders think they're embedding 
> Gecko, not XUL. Seems to me it would make a lot more sense to call it 
> "libgecko".
> Brendan says that many embedders don't want XUL. Too bad; if we're 
> going to have a single shared Gecko library, it has to have XUL --- 
> "Firefox demands it". And for XUL-resistant embedders, calling it 
> "libgecko" and leaving XUL in the fine print is better marketing, 
> anyway, IMHO.
> Rob