I think so too, but this does not seem to be the case. Can anybody
verify this or give an example of an extension where this is the case?
Martin Honnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Michael Bolin wrote:
>
> > I'm creating a Mozilla extension that involves making a SOAP code, so
> > I have some JavaScript code like this:
> >
> > function doSoap(some params) {
> > call = new SOAPCall();
> > call.transportURI = "the_url";
> > call.encode(some params);
> > call.invoke();
> > }
> >
> > My extension also has a XUL overlay. When the user fills out the
> > information for the SOAP call through the XUL overlay and passes it to
> > the JavaScript, the code works as expected.
> >
> > However, I would also like to run this JavaScript from an HTML page
> > that I include in my extension. Thus, I have a page whose URI is
> > something like:
> >
> > jar:resource:///chrome/my-extension.jar!/locale/en-US/myPage.html?soapparam=value
> >
> > But when myPage.html calls doSoap(), I get the following exception
> > when "call.invoke()" is reached in the script:
> >
> > Error: uncaught exception: [Exception... "Component returned failure
> > code: 0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED) [nsISOAPCall.invoke]"
> > nsresult: "0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED)" location: "JS frame ::
> > jar:resource:///chrome/GoogleDominoes-plugin.jar!/content/google_wsdl.js
> > :: doGoogleSearch :: line 204" data: no]
> >
> > Thus, it seems like I have the permissions to call this from the XUL
> > of my extension, but not the HTML? Could someone help me make this
> > work from the HTML as well? Or does this have nothing to do with
> > permissions at all?
>
> If HTML is served from chrome then you should have the same permissions
> as with XUL served from chrome.
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
