Allow building of XFA branch without XFA

Allow building of XFA branch without XFA

R=thestig@chromium.org

Committed: https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/a8a39e25af3c19bb91434fdf367cffa0e1536934

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-09 22:05:15]

tsepez@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-09 22:05:16]

First cut at this. Appears to link.

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-09 22:41:36]

On 2015/10/09 22:05:16, Tom Sepez wrote:
> First cut at this. Appears to link.
In particular, it may be pointless to consider XFA without JS, so this would
hopefully fix the builds for that case.

It would also be fun to diff core/ and fpdfsdk/ against master, and see if we
can't put most of that code in an #ifdef PDF_ENABLE_XFA.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-10-10 00:28:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_R...
File fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_Runtime.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_R...
fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_Runtime.cpp:223: FX_BOOL
CJS_Runtime::GetHValueByName(const CFX_ByteStringC& utf8Name,
Shouldn't the entire function be ifdef'd out instead? Same in other files... or
is it just easier to turn the functions into no-ops than fixing all the call
sites?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/xfa.gyp
File xfa.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/xfa.gyp#newcode2
xfa.gyp:2: "variables": {
Do we want to leave this file alone, and instead just drop all dependencies on
the xfa target?

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-12 18:04:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_R...
File fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_Runtime.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_R...
fpdfsdk/src/javascript/JS_Runtime.cpp:223: FX_BOOL
CJS_Runtime::GetHValueByName(const CFX_ByteStringC& utf8Name,
On 2015/10/10 00:28:31, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Shouldn't the entire function be ifdef'd out instead? Same in other files...
or
> is it just easier to turn the functions into no-ops than fixing all the call
> sites?
Exactly.  We can widen these later on if we want.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/xfa.gyp
File xfa.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/1/xfa.gyp#newcode2
xfa.gyp:2: "variables": {
On 2015/10/10 00:28:31, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Do we want to leave this file alone, and instead just drop all dependencies on
> the xfa target?
Done.

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-12 18:09:22]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/20001/pdfium.gyp
File pdfium.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/20001/pdfium.gyp#newcode683
pdfium.gyp:683: 'javascript'
note: needed to link when xfa not providing JS.  We'll take care of this when
merging the JS-only code.

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-12 21:26:03]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/20001/xfa.gyp
File xfa.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1399833002/diff/20001/xfa.gyp#newcode27
xfa.gyp:27: "xfa/include/fwl/adapter/fwl_adapterclipboardmgr.h",
ah, sort-lines.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-10-12 22:18:54]

lgtm

[Tom Sepez, 2015-10-12 22:47:11]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) manually as
a8a39e25af3c19bb91434fdf367cffa0e1536934 (presubmit successful).