Re: supporting TX_EXE

[email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm working on a fix for bugzilla 94270 -- adding support for
> namespaces.
> 
> I see a lot of #ifdef / #ifndef TX_EXE in the transformiix code. I'm
> wondering whether I need to write the code to work with the assumption
> that TX_EXE is defined, or isn't defined, or both.
> Peter VdB's patch at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=149205
> seems to be written for the case where TX_EXE is not defined.
> 
> Based on http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Building_TransforMiiX_standalone,
> I get the impression that TX_EXE indicates a standalone build?
> 
> Looking at http://www.nabble.com/checkout---build-TransforMiiX-(standalone)-t1818776.html,
> it sounds like the standalone build is not really supported anymore.
> (There doesn't seem to be a reply to that message.)
> 
> So... can I assume TX_EXE will not be defined? Seems like a fair bit
> more work if I have to code for both possibilities. (Especially
> research... and I'm brand-new to Tx.)

This is really up to the module owner, peterv, to decide. But my 
oppinion is that if you write a module-only (i.e. one where TX_EXE is 
not defined) we'll take that. As long as you don't break standalone 
(TX_EXE is defined) more than it already is.

/ Jonas