Mozilla 1.0 Development Process
Friday March 1st, 2002
mozilla.org drivers have posted the plan for the road to 1.0, and how the tree will be managed. Basically, the tree will be under driver control for the entire time following the 0.9.9 branching, which is occurring right now. Large landings will have to be placed on the Patch Landing Tool so that firstname.lastname@example.org can know what will be going into the tree, and when. Click the Full Article link to get the whole scoop.
#22 Re: Re: XBL... DOM events... Hyatt...
Tuesday March 5th, 2002 2:59 PM
You are replying to this message
You're mistaken about the relationship between Carbon and Cocoa. Cocoa is for Mac OS X only applications. Carbon is for applications that can run on either Mac OS X or Mac OS 9. Please note that this is also what the links you gave say. As for performance, there is no reason a Carbon UI can't run at a more than acceptable speed on both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.
There already being a Carbon-based Mozilla, there's obviously no pressing need for a Cocoa version right away. This is a side project, which may be why it lives at mozdev.org. Meanwhile, Mozilla itself is desperately in need of bug fixes, performance improvements, and footprint reductions as it approaches 1.0. Why am I reminded of jwz saying that when he was at Netscape, the engineers just did whatever the heck they wanted to? Weren't the people across the hall building a robot instead of coding on Netscape?
As I've said before, the most interesting thing to me about this side project, Chimera <http://chimera.mozdev.org/> , is this: "The cross-platform UI will be replaced with native Cocoa widgetry (such as customizable toolbars and a drawer for the sidebar). The plan is to produce only a browser (no other apps!), and to keep the UI as simple and as clean as possible. " In other words, the plan is to completely abandon two critical but controversial architectural features of the Mozilla project, cross-platform UI and an application suite (including mail, composing, etc.) instead of just a browser. It appears that internal opinion within the project may have come closer to the views of those of us who've been raising hard questions about these features all along.