Re: Proposed policy change: reusability of tests by other browsers

2012-11-09 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/9/12 12:52 AM, James Graham wrote: I know Mozilla use a system where all the tests in a file should pass, but I don't see how that will work well when you don't control the tests. If you are manually editing every file when you import it, I imagine that updating tests will be so time consum

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I challenge your presuppositions. The average file should need no more > than one or two `using SYMBOL;` lines per header it includes. Maintaining > this will not be significantly more difficult than maintaining the existing > lists of head

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

2012-11-09 Thread Mook
On 11/9/2012 10:12 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Mook wrote: Ping - was this part ever answered? Did you see my email on November 1st? - Kyle Argh; sorry, Thunderbird screwed up threading there and decided your message was a sibling. That, and I initially read it

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/9/12 8:03 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: I challenge your presuppositions. The average file should need no more than one or two `using SYMBOL;` lines per header it includes. That depends on the structure of the code, no? For example, until we finish moving over all of the DOM to live inside

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/9/12 8:11 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: The only issue I see is using namespace at file scope in a _header file_. I would support a coding style rule against that. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Coding_Style#Namespaces says: No "using" statements are allowed in h

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Benoit Jacob
2012/11/9 Zack Weinberg : > On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: >> >> I reviewed a patch today that had: >> >> using namespace mozilla; >> using namespace dom; > > > The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what > you need. In a given cpp file (in a single TU), as

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Zack Weinberg
On 2012-11-09 10:49 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what you need. I really don't think it should. I do not want to see source files full of difficult-to-maintain and unn

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what > you need. I really don't think it should. I do not want to see source files full of difficult-to-maintain and unnecessary "using" boilerplate a la Java "import".

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Zack Weinberg
On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: I reviewed a patch today that had: using namespace mozilla; using namespace dom; The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what you need. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platfor

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2012-11-09 3:40 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 11/9/12 11:53 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: using namespace mozilla; using namespace mozilla::dom; The style guidelines recommend against using nested namespaces, so doing what you suggest would make them self-inconsistent. But we have some nested n

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Chris Peterson
On 11/9/12 11:53 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: using namespace mozilla; using namespace mozilla::dom; The style guidelines recommend against using nested namespaces, so doing what you suggest would make them self-inconsistent. But we have some nested namespaces today, so `using` them like Kyle su

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2012-11-09 2:43 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: Hmm, well, a partial feature might be considered useful for web developers, but still finishing the implementation may mean changing the way that the partial implementation works later on, which is likely to break stuff that rely on it. I'm not sure ho

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: I reviewed a patch today that had: using namespace mozilla; using namespace dom; The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level dom namespace. In the re

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Kyle Huey
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 11/9/12 10:28 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: > >> I reviewed a patch today that had: >> >> using namespace mozilla; >> using namespace dom; >> >> The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom >> namespaces, but this is

Re: Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Gregory Szorc
On 11/9/12 10:28 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: I reviewed a patch today that had: using namespace mozilla; using namespace dom; The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level dom namespace. In the revi

No Gfx meeting next Monday, November 12. Also probably no meeting the week after.

2012-11-09 Thread Benoit Jacob
Hi, There won't be a Gfx meeting next week. We had one last Monday, and next week the Gfx team is gathering in Vancouver. For the same reason, by default I expect that we won't meet either on November 19. Let's say that meeting is cancelled by default, and if we end up deciding we want to meet on

Proposed style guide modification: using declarations and nested namespaces

2012-11-09 Thread Kyle Huey
I reviewed a patch today that had: using namespace mozilla; using namespace dom; The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level dom namespace. In the review comments I asked the author to write

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

2012-11-09 Thread Kyle Huey
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Mook wrote: > Ping - was this part ever answered? Did you see my email on November 1st? - Kyle ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread Neil
Is there any way we can make it so that the prefixed version doesn't work unless you attempt (and presumably fail) to detect the unprefixed version? -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org h

Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-09 Thread Ted Mielczarek
On 11/9/2012 8:26 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > AFAIK, the major reason why we did abandon doing that was because moving > all our interaction with the content to be async was too much work for > the moment. Isn't that same work required for what you propose?\ No. AIUI, the reason we abandoned electr

Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-09 Thread Robert Kaiser
Honza Bambas schrieb: Few reasons: - I really don't believe we will soon/ever have a good OOP Firefox implementation AFAIK, the major reason why we did abandon doing that was because moving all our interaction with the content to be async was too much work for the moment. Isn't that same work

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread Benoit Jacob
2012/11/8 Benoit Jacob : > 2012/11/8 Henri Sivonen : >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >>> My concrete example is WebGL extensions. These go through 4 stages: >>> 1. "proposal": no browser must implement it. >>> 2. "draft": implementations must use a vendor prefix. >> >>

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread Benoit Jacob
2012/11/9 Robert Kaiser : > Joe Drew schrieb: >> >> On 2012-11-06 8:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> >>> Therefore, I propose that we adopt the following policy: >>> 1) APIs that are not ready for use by Web developers shall not be >>> shipped on the release channel (unless preffed off). >>> 2)

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread Robert Kaiser
Joe Drew schrieb: On 2012-11-06 8:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: Therefore, I propose that we adopt the following policy: 1) APIs that are not ready for use by Web developers shall not be shipped on the release channel (unless preffed off). 2) APIs that are shipped on the release channel shall

Re: XULRunner on OS X, Why is not supported?

2012-11-09 Thread Robert Kaiser
richardson.balca...@gmail.com schrieb: I believe my question is, if Mozilla is taking out their app development platform not 'XUL' per se. How would they promote "openness, innovation and opportunity on the web", only by giving us the opportunity of doing so in extensions on a browser? What's

Re: Proposal: Not shipping prefixed APIs on the release channel

2012-11-09 Thread jussi . kalliokoski
I'm strongly in favor of this, I actually even blogged about the subject a while back: http://blog.avd.io/posts/vendor-prefixes . :) On Friday, 9 November 2012 09:43:45 UTC+2, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > On 2012-11-08 1:44 AM, Henri Sivonen