Ok if you issue
Firebug.Debugger.addListener(this);
on an object with
// Firebug.Debugger listener
onCall: function(context, frame)
{
Firebug.Console.log(frame, context);
},
you should get called. You can test by using the command line
monitor(foo)
for a page that has a function foo().
This is not satisfactory: you'll probably want to suppress the output
the console. Seems to me that we should adopt the DOM model for
firebug events, with extensions surrounding the core modules. That
would allow you to assert "capture" true and then abort the event
dispatch chain.
But start with this and give feedback.
John.
On Dec 2, 5:24 pm, Manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well this is supposed to support monitoring calls, but I've never seen
> > it in action.
>
> > From what I can tell, the result should be these calls for monitored
> > methods:
> > frame = getStackFrame(frame, context);
> > Firebug.Console.log(frame, context);
> > which is close to what you need for raw input.
>
> > Seems like we should move that code to Firebug.console, make it a
> > debug listener, and dispatch "onCall" with [context, frame].
>
> Hi John,
>
> Will this be similar to the firebug-http-observer service?
> A single point for firebug to attach to the Firefox jsd and interested
> parties can register appropriate listeners.
>
> In either case, it will be great if something workable can be agreed
> upon and released soon. I'm almost done with my network and DOM work
> and look forward to wrapping up this final item before I move onto the
> UI challenge :-O
>
> Regards,
> Manoj
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
