What do you think?
Wednesday October 10th, 2001
#7 Re: Good Question
Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:44 AM
You are replying to this message
I'm probably biased here, I own ChatZilla and Venkman, which are in the default builds, and cview, which is not, so I'll try to stick with facts.
ChatZilla is 101k of js, xul, css, and images. When building, it takes a few seconds to compress this stuff, and slightly more than 101k of your disk. If you're installing via a stub installer, the only overhead is about 7 lines of text in the installer script.
Venkman's story is slightly different. Part of Venkman is actually installed regardless of whether or not you select the "debugger" component in the installer. The part that is installed consists of a 68k binary component, and about 3k of interface data in browser.xpt. This 71k of "bloat" makes it absolutley trivial to install the cross platform front end at a later date. Without installing this, someone has to maintain a seperate install for each build, and each platform, regardless of whether or not the debugger itself has changed. Not only a nightmare for someone trying to distribute both mozilla and venkman, but for the end user trying to figure out which version is the right one. The front end is an additional 120k of js, xul, css, and images, and like ChatZilla, adds just a few lines to the installer script. If you don't want it, don't select it. As far as build overhead goes, Venkman, in total, adds about 30 seconds to a debug build on my P3/850 laptop. Multiple builds is overkill, IMO. I'll bet the build team has better things to do than manage additional build flavors, for each platform, branch and trunk. The installer *already* allows users to configure which components are installed, why add more headache and confusion?