I know the majority of PortableApps releases don't rely on XULRunner, but some do. Since XULRunner weighs in at a hefty 22MB, wouldn't it be a good idea to create one XULRunner installer, which would put XULRunner in Common Files (like Java Portable does with Java), instead of bundling XULRunner with every app that needs it?
PAL could also get another Activate entry to benefit from this:
[Activate] XULRunner=true
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Most XULRunner-based apps require a specific version, usually with custom stuff included, which is incompatible with other apps. Most apps can't reference an external one at all.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
So, for all practical purposes, XULRunner is like GTK (in terms of apps needing their own version, etc.)?
"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."
Actually, I'd say it's worse, as none of the major apps (Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Songbird, etc) have ever been able to share a XULRunner instance.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Wow, that's ugly. Why is everything so non-standard?
A troubling idea just occurred to me. If two apps that use different versions of XULRunner are run at the same time, would the two XULRunners conflict with each other?
"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."
They're independent.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Gee, doesn't that sound a lot like the way Windows works, and why portable applications are better?
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com