Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On 8/17/15 2:06 PM, Philip Chee wrote: Yes we now have a CloneIgnoringRef. How difficult is it to make a clone-ignoring-query? More difficult than one would assume, because any time nsIURI is changed we have to jump through hoops to keep the serialization/deserialization code in principals that sessionstore relies on happy. It's doable, but it needs to be done pretty carefully... -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On 16/08/2015 13:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at this point. XUL isn't going away immediately. In the meantime my use cases are still valid. Phil -- Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On 17/08/2015 02:56, Neil wrote: Philip Chee wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Back then ignoring the hash or the search were equally complicated; nowadays ignoring the hash is relatively easy. Yes we now have a CloneIgnoringRef. How difficult is it to make a clone-ignoring-query? I mean for an experienced C++ developer and not a C++ Dummies like myself. Phil -- Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On 17/08/2015 00:53, Adam Moore wrote: Seems like this has more to do with the overlay system than XUL itself. Losing the ability to add overlays to customize the browser chrome would be brutal, and a move away from XUL shouldn't be done at the expense of what the ecosystem provides today for people who need to customize the browser. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at this point. The actual question I wanted to ask is: Are there any objections to me or some other contributor to make overlays ignore query part as well? I think the ignorequery proposal would be really useful -- today, these customizations are bypassed if the user adds an arbitrary param to the uri, which rarely is what was intended. After thinking about this for a bit I don't think we need an additional flag. This is how I think it should work. overlay foo.xul bar.xul *1 Overlay code ignores query strings overlay foo.xul?type=baz bar.xul *2 Overlay code must match the whole URL including query string. In the case of (2) the existing behaviour is unchanged. 1a. for overlaid items that don't normally take query strings the existing behaviour is unchanged. 1b. foo.xul takes a query string but the developer doesn't include the query string in their overlay. Overlays that didn't get applied now get applied. But then this is probably what the developer wanted in the first place. Phil -- Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On 17 August 2015 at 20:06, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/08/2015 02:56, Neil wrote: Philip Chee wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Back then ignoring the hash or the search were equally complicated; nowadays ignoring the hash is relatively easy. Yes we now have a CloneIgnoringRef. How difficult is it to make a clone-ignoring-query? I mean for an experienced C++ developer and not a C++ Dummies like myself. I don't know if this would solve the initial issue with XUL overlays, but adding CloneIgnoringRef is definitely possible. In the meantime, I think you can achieve the same result with the following code: nsCOMPtrnsIURL url = do_QueryInterface(uri); url-SetQuery(EmptyCString()); ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
As others have said, XUL is going away. It is not going away tomorrow. We should be careful about if and how we invest here, so usecases are important. On 15/08/2015 20:48, Philip Chee wrote: Use case 1: chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?a=bc=d This could be written as chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?c=da=b So I would need to overlay both chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?a=bc=d chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?c=da=b Which foo/bar are we talking about? I can't think of anything Firefox ships that uses querystrings for chrome:// URLs. This could be a problem for add-ons, but so far that is a theory, and you haven't provided a concrete example. Use case 2: about:config supports the following syntax: about:config?filter=string Where string could potentially be any valid UTF-8 string. This functionality isn't exposed in any way. If I had a choice, I would sooner remove that functionality which, IMO, has very little if any usecases (websites can't link to about:config anyway, and nothing in chrome links to it, so this is just the difference of typing this in the address bar vs. typing it in the filter box). These don't seem like particularly strong usecases for changing anything here. ~ Gijs ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
Seems like this has more to do with the overlay system than XUL itself. Losing the ability to add overlays to customize the browser chrome would be brutal, and a move away from XUL shouldn't be done at the expense of what the ecosystem provides today for people who need to customize the browser. I think the ignorequery proposal would be really useful -- today, these customizations are bypassed if the user adds an arbitrary param to the uri, which rarely is what was intended. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at this point. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
Philip Chee wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Back then ignoring the hash or the search were equally complicated; nowadays ignoring the hash is relatively easy. Anne van Kesteren wrote: Philip Chee wrote: Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at this point. Then why don't you object to bug 1034999? -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at this point. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
