<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JavaScript Code Modules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/#comment-4979</link>
		<dc:creator>Wladimir Palant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/#comment-4979</guid>
		<description>Too bad that bug 406538 prevents this feature from being really useful. At least we can now use modules from chrome:// if they are not inside a JAR file - still, this is suboptimal for extensions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Too bad that bug 406538 prevents this feature from being really useful. At least we can now use modules from chrome:// if they are not inside a JAR file - still, this is suboptimal for extensions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Dolske</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/#comment-4972</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Dolske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/01/javascript-code-modules/#comment-4972</guid>
		<description>XPCOMutils.jsm probably deserves a shoutout here too... If you're implementing a XPCOM component in JS, it really reduces the amount of boilerplate code you need to put in your component. [Such code can also be leak-prone in tricky ways.]

Here's a patch from a few months ago showing how it works:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=269435&#38;action=diff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>XPCOMutils.jsm probably deserves a shoutout here too&#8230; If you&#8217;re implementing a XPCOM component in JS, it really reduces the amount of boilerplate code you need to put in your component. [Such code can also be leak-prone in tricky ways.]</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a patch from a few months ago showing how it works:</p>
<p><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=269435&amp;action=diff" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=269435&amp;action=diff</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
