Mitchell,
Thanks for the help so far, but due to my complete incompetence it
doesn't quite seem to be enough yet, so if you could find your way
clear to help me just a little bit more it would be much appreciated.
So what I have tried so far is the following:
I added the following lines to my prefs.js file, but I still get a
Permission denied to get property Unknownclass.classesById. The lines
as they show up currently in my prefs.js file are:
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.fullaccess.granted",
"UniversalXPConnect");
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.fullaccess.id",
"http://slbdhcp075:8384";);
user_pref("signed.applets.codebase_principal_support", true);
The relevant code as it shows up in the javascript file is:
###### Begin Code Snippet ################
var sockServiceClass =
Components.classesByID["{c07e81e0-ef12-11d2-92b6-00105a1b0d64}"];
if (!sockServiceClass)
throw ("Couldn't get socket service class.");
var sockService = sockServiceClass.getService();
if (!sockService)
throw ("Couldn't get socket service.");
this._sockService = sockService.QueryInterface
(Components.interfaces.nsISocketTransportService);
// to preserve ourselves within necko/async
this.wrappedJSObject = this;
##### End Code Snippet ###################
Finally, in reading through your previous post I realized that I don't
quite know the difference between loading a javascript interface as
content vs. chrome, which may well be the problem. So, if you could
help clarify the difference or point me to the relevant documentation
that would be great.
Thanks Again,
James Warner
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mitchell Stoltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> James,
> Remote chrome is a proposed feature that hasn't actually been
> implemented yet. It is possible to configure Mozilla to allow remote XUL
> files (loaded as content, not as chrome) to call XPCOM interfaces. Try
> adding these lines to the prefs.js file in your user profile directory
> while Mozilla is not running:
>
> user_pref("signed.applets.codebase_principal_support", true);
> user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.fullaccess.id",
> "http://myhost.com:1234";);
> user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.fullaccess.granted",
> "UniversalXPConnect");
>
> Replace "http://myhost.com:1234"; with the hostname and port from which
> your xul content will be served. "http://localhost:1234"; should work
> fine if that's what you're using.
> good luck,
> Mitch Stoltz
>
>
> James Warner wrote:
>
> > I apologize if this question has already been answered completely, but
> > I've been unable to find any definitive documentation and my own Xul
> > experiments have left me somewhat confused.
> >
> > Anyway, my question is whether it is possible to disable the security
> > manager so that Xul files can be sent over an http url and then
> > execute XpCom style interface's inside of the JavaScript code
> > associated with that Xul file. I know that I can use chrome to
> > accomplish such a thing if the chrome is set up properly inside of the
> > mozilla chrome directory, but that is a different thing entirely than
> > doing it over http. Anyway ideally what I would like to be able to do
> > is get the Xul Data over http and post it back to another application
> > listening on a different Socket. I have seen references to remote
> > chrome, which looks like it allows for sending Xul remotely, but I am
> > wondering what setup is required to allow remote chrome and if it
> > allows for executing XpConnect/XpCom interfaces or if that is
> > prohibited as well?
> >
> > BTW I do realize that from a Web Browser security standpoint this is
> > not a desirable thing to do, but from the implementation of a
> > generalized application's development toolkit it would seem that being
> > able to do something like this would be desirable (at least for my
> > current project it seem's like a great thing to do).
> >
> > Thank's in Advance for the Input,
> >
> > James Warner
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
