JS-ification and code organization

Jim squibblyflabbetydoo at gmail.com
Fri Jan 22 07:50:06 UTC 2016


On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <pidgeot18 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> At present, Thunderbird already uses two JS protocol libraries: JSMime and
> ical.js. I've also prepared a SASL library and I've poked away at an NNTP
> library that I want to try testing (to replace nsNNTPProtocol eventually)
> sometime this year; I've also poked a little bit at the whiteout.io (now
> emailjs) libraries.
>

I'd be especially interested in the NNTP library so we could finally enable
Gloda on NNTP. I seem to recall the issue being somewhere in nsNNTPProtocol
(or maybe a related class), and no one actually knowing quite how to fix
it.


> The standard testing environment for JS these days seems to be Mocha [3],
> and many of the libraries are using CommonJS-style assert for the tests.


Don't even get me started about assert libraries in JS. They're all awful,
especially the "expectation" interface that Chai uses. CommonJS-style
asserts at least have the benefit of not being overly-cutesy. I prefer an
interface more like Hamcrest <http://hamcrest.org/> or my own project,
mettle (which is C++14, sorry) <
http://jimporter.github.io/mettle/expectations/>. I really wish something
better existed for JS.


> One plausible alternative is to use submodules, but my prior experience
> with build systems and release engineering has left me uncomfortable with
> having Thunderbird use more than 1 repository.


Submodules are pretty annoying to work with, but in my experience, mainly
because it's easy to forget that `git clone` doesn't pull submodules in.
I'm not sure if releng has any significant issues with them, though.


> Another alternative is to do what is done for NSPR and NSS, and that is to
> effectively check in the entire repository in a subfolder and update that
> periodically [5].
>

Vendoring the libraries like this is probably the most-reliable method
(although using a package manager is probably doable too).


> The biggest challenge, of course, is the sheer lack of a useful standard
> library in JS.


Maybe someone needs to make Boost.js. :)

[3] Specifically, I (and apparently ical.js) prefer the tdd UI for this,
> which isn't the default. The only real difference is that the tdd uses
> suite/test for its function names, while the default uses describe/it.
>

suite/test is better, I agree. describe/it is an extremely-strange wording
and usually results in people trying to reword their tests to match the
(English) grammar the names imply, e.g. `it("puts the lotion on the
skin")`. That usually results in less-readable test logs in my opinion.


> [7] I've ended up using MIT for these libraries, largely because it's
> smaller in boilerplate, I think it's a slightly less fearful license for
> third-party users, it's what the emailjs libraries used, and I'm not a
> strong believer in the weak copyleft that MPL is. I'll point out that
> ICAL.js is using MPL 2 and Gaia (including, presumably, Gaia Email) uses
> Apache.
>

Permissive licenses are fine by me. Personally, I'd much rather people be
able to use my code than anything else.

Overall, this sounds like a good plan, and I think it's wise if we try to
minimize the amount of new C++ code in Thunderbird while excising the
existing C++. As much as I like C++, it doesn't seem to have a future in
Thunderbird due to incoming Gecko changes.

- Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20160122/d9d20e36/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list