On Dec 4, 3:05 pm, Manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:16 am, John J Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You definitely don't want to automatically monitor all javascript
> > activity. The browser runs on javascript. We have to have some
> > selection mechanism.
>
> I was thinking of filtering the frames using the jsdIStackFrame's
> isNative property and further distinguishing scripts based on http/
> https/file: schemes (using jsdIScript's fileName property) and
> ignoring everything else (chrome: etc.) I think that would work.
Don't you want just the frames from a single web page? (Not the other
tabs/windows?)
I think Firebug's API should be based on the 'context', that is it
should give you data marked with or filtered by window. A year from
now the windows will be in separate processes so we want to isolate
code the deals with multiple windows.
>
> > I just implemented one (by function) that I knew
> > would be quick to implement so you can start with it while we work out
> > other selection mechanisms.
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't thought through this type of approach so I'm
> not sure how it would work. If there was an easy way to identify all
> functions, my extension could register for all of them. Otherwise, it
> requires that the user know which JS functions need to be monitored.
> Whereas the assumption of my extension is that the user does not know
> and is infact going to use my extension to figure out which JS
> functions / events etc. matter in any given interaction with the
> application.
Sure, but while I am adding support for that I wanted to give you a
start.
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
