Re: Notes about implementing DOM APIs in Rust

2016-06-22 Thread Andrew McCreight
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Now that I'm looking at the hand-written notes that I made in the > meeting, I notice that the above paragraph fails to say how the > AddRef, Release and associated cycle collection-related calls are > routed from C++

MXR permanently offline, please transition to DXR

2016-06-22 Thread Lawrence Mandel
Mozilla Cross-Reference, better known as MXR (https://mxr.mozilla.org), was taken offline on June 13, 2016, to investigate a potential security issue. After careful review of the codebase, we have decided to accelerate the planned transition from MXR to its more modern equivalent, DXR (

Re: Notes about implementing DOM APIs in Rust

2016-06-22 Thread Bobby Holley
Sure - it's just a question of whether this level of hackery is desirable for integrating with the rest of Gecko (a platform we control). I suspect that we can probably solve whatever use-cases arise in cleaner ways, but we should wait for use-cases to appear first. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:33

Re: Notes about implementing DOM APIs in Rust

2016-06-22 Thread Jack Moffitt
> I do not recall dismissing exposing COM-compatible vtables from Rust. We must implement COM interfaces in Rust for Windows platform things* already. Specifically I have macros that generate IUnknown which for Windows COM includes AddRef, Release, and QueryInterface. For COM interfaces with

Re: Notes about implementing DOM APIs in Rust

2016-06-22 Thread Josh Matthews
On 2016-06-22 1:05 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: Additionally, there was some discussion about reference counting. Implementing an XPCOM binding for Rust was not a popular idea and was discarded. Still, it was considered important to be able to use Gecko-style reference counting in a cycle

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

2016-06-22 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Francis wrote: > Can we make suggestions about how to improve the charter rather than just > oppose it? I don't necessarily agree with the technical approach the group > is currently taking, but I do agree that the Web of Things

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

2016-06-22 Thread Benjamin Francis
On 22 June 2016 at 17:18, L. David Baron wrote: > So opposing it takes both a good bit of energy and a potentially a > good bit of political capital (in that it might reduce the > seriousness with which people take future objections that we make). > Do you think it's actually

Notes about implementing DOM APIs in Rust

2016-06-22 Thread Henri Sivonen
Last week, people interested in the matter met to talk about implementing DOM APIs in Rust. Here are my notes. The summary of the meeting is that we shouldn't be designing bridge framework type of stuff ahead of time and for the time being we should instead address issues as they arise. We

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

2016-06-22 Thread L. David Baron
On Monday 2016-06-20 01:38 -0700, mar...@marcosc.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:06:39 PM UTC+10, David Baron wrote: > > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should > > support or oppose it. >