MemShrink Meeting - Tuesday, 18 March 2014 at 4:00pm PDT
The next MemShrink meeting will be brought to you by proper leak-checking of RefCounted objects: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=935778 The wiki page for this meeting is at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink Agenda: * Prioritize unprioritized MemShrink bugs. * Discuss how we measure progress. * Discuss approaches to getting more data. Meeting details: * Tue, 18 March, 4:00 PM PDT * http://arewemeetingyet.com/Los%20Angeles/2014-03-18/16:00/MemShrink%20Meeting * Vidyo: Memshrink * Dial-in Info: - In office or soft phone: extension 92 - US/INTL: 650-903-0800 or 650-215-1282 then extension 92 - Toll-free: 800-707-2533 then password 369 - Conference num 98802 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Please do not add new web-exposed XPCOM objects
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > Maybe this means we should consider exposing some kind of structured-clone > system for calling untrusted code, plus a safer way to call functions which > may return arbitrary results? > This actually already exists. Cu.exportFunction (also see Cu.cloneInto). Gabor, do we have docs for them anywhere on MDN? If not, can you coordinate with the docs team to make that happen? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Timed Text Working Group (WebVTT and TTML)
Thanks for adding me Anne, you did get my email correct :-). Personally, I'm not interested in developing TTML. I still agree to all the points from our previous discussion from the page you linked, Anne. I'm not really sure whether having a joint working group would be of benefit, particularly if there isn't interest in developing TTML in the WebVTT community, which from my experience is the case. It also scares me a bit because having a joint group might result in WebVTT being modified for TTML specific reasons, such as better interoperability, or otherwise, (possibly?) which wouldn't be good for the spec moving forward due to our previous concerns. Rick On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:56 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > > > Timed Text Working Group > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2014Feb/0004.html > > http://www.w3.org/2013/10/timed-text-charter.html > > deadline for comments: March 20 > > > > This new charter is quite substantive, in that it recharters a > > working group that was previously only for TTML to now be to develop > > both TTML and WebVTT. My understanding is that the two halves of > > the group are expected to operate somewhat separately but also > > interact, although the charter doesn't seem to say that explicitly. > > > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through > > March 20. Please reply to this thread if you think there's > > something we should say. > > So we commented pretty strongly against this in the past: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013May/0034.html > > Has something changed? > > > (Not sure I got the correct email address for Rick, I found it on old > archived email from a year ago.) > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Geolocation Working Group
I am. (or someone on my team will) ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Please do not add new web-exposed XPCOM objects
On 3/17/14 9:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: Isn't this something which pagemod addons and greasemonkey already do? To some extent. In a lot of cases, those are running with the principal of the page, not with a system principal; that makes a big difference. Do we not have a safe way now to expose objects and functions to pages (all pages or some pages)? We have a way that can be safe as long as you're really careful about some things. e.g. if your API takes options objects, you have to realize that you might invoke arbitrary page script any time you touch the options object. What WebIDL gives you is handling some of those details for you so you don't have to think about them. Maybe this means we should consider exposing some kind of structured-clone system for calling untrusted code, plus a safer way to call functions which may return arbitrary results? Yes, on both counts. -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Geolocation Working Group
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:57 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > Geolocation Working Group > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2014Feb/0002.html > http://www.w3.org/2014/02/geo-charter.html > deadline for comments: March 15 > > I don't know any of the background on this one. It seems geofencing is the new thing. Do we have people working on that? Would make sense especially in the context of Firefox OS. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Timed Text Working Group (WebVTT and TTML)
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:56 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > Timed Text Working Group > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2014Feb/0004.html > http://www.w3.org/2013/10/timed-text-charter.html > deadline for comments: March 20 > > This new charter is quite substantive, in that it recharters a > working group that was previously only for TTML to now be to develop > both TTML and WebVTT. My understanding is that the two halves of > the group are expected to operate somewhat separately but also > interact, although the charter doesn't seem to say that explicitly. > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through > March 20. Please reply to this thread if you think there's > something we should say. So we commented pretty strongly against this in the past: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013May/0034.html Has something changed? (Not sure I got the correct email address for Rick, I found it on old archived email from a year ago.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Please do not add new web-exposed XPCOM objects
On 3/14/2014 11:26 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
For non-core, if you control the Gecko you build against, then the
answer is the same. If you have to work against a random Gecko,
that's a problem we don't have a good solution for yet.
Assuming you really need to expose the object to a web page. On the
other hand, it's not clear to me that you want to be exposing objects
to all web pages like that, in general.
Isn't this something which pagemod addons and greasemonkey already do?
There's clearly lots of use-cases for polyfills or experiments provided
by addons. Do we not have a safe way now to expose objects and functions
to pages (all pages or some pages)?
I did discover recently that you can expose properties on the global of
a Cu.Sandbox, but only the global, and you can't expose deep object
hierarchies. There are also scary warnings about using return results
from an .evalInSandbox on this doc page, which seem like footguns still:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Components.utils.evalInSandbox
For my case, I wasn't calling into the DOM, I was calling into a
null-principal sandbox, but the sandbox was basically supposed to define
a function:
// Filter for whether to run a telemetry experiment
function filter(context) {
if ("inspec...@mozilla.org" in
context.healthReportPayload.data.last.org.mozilla.addons.addons) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
And then I would call the Sandbox.filter function with a context object
that has the FHR payload. But since you can't pass complex objects to a
sandbox, I've had to serialize the structure using JSON and deserialize
it in the sandbox. Maybe this means we should consider exposing some
kind of structured-clone system for calling untrusted code, plus a safer
way to call functions which may return arbitrary results?
--BDS
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Linux Build Prerequisites
On (2014年03月12日 21:25), saulo.a.mor...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:38:18 PM UTC-3, Hubert Figuière wrote: >> On 11/03/14 04:31 PM, saulo.a.mor...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I am trying to build firefox in my linux box but I am not understanding >>> why do I need to have libgtk? >> >>> >> >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Linux_Prerequisites >> >>> >> >>> If firefox is develop with XUL and XUL is not based in GTK why GTK is >>> required? >> >> >> >> >> >> XUL use Gtk on Linux/UNIX to do its work. Simple as that. So you need it. >> >> >> >> Hub > > XUL is using Gtk2 that is a little old. Is there any plan to support a > universal toolkit in XUL, like Aura from Google Chrome ? > > I am building a linux box based in Qt and I dont want an old GTK package > just to satisfy Firefox browser, more packages means more support... > > thks, > Saulo I am curious. Does current mozilla software (firefox, thunderbid) run on your linux box based on Qt (only?). At least, on my Debian boxex, I had to install some additional library binaries to use firefox and thunderbird. But, to compile and link mozilla software, I needed to install additional debian development packages (namely header files that are NOT part of the ordinary library packages, and additional symbol files, I suspect.). Adding development packages (basically header files) were not that space-consuming considering that the binary libraries are already very large. Just FYI. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
