Re: Java Deployment Kit block

On 04/28/2015 04:16 PM, Dhon Buenaventura wrote: > Hi There, > > The block placed on the Java Deployment Kit seems to affect other plugins > such as Flash. I was using Nightly 64-bit as my web browser and have > observed that in the past few days, Adobe Flash seems to not work even > though I have

Java Deployment Kit block

Hi There, The block placed on the Java Deployment Kit seems to affect other plugins such as Flash. I was using Nightly 64-bit as my web browser and have observed that in the past few days, Adobe Flash seems to not work even though I have it set to always enabled. The only plugin disabled in my bro

Windows content process sandbox now low integrity by default

Following on from my previous post [1], I have now landed a patch that makes the Windows content process sandbox low integrity by default. (pref: security.sandbox.content.level=1) I know of only one regression that this causes at the moment. This is that printing using the "Microsoft XPS Documen

Re: RFC: Navigation transitions

It would be good to know how this plays with the visibility api? When does the outgoing document become "hidden" - at the end of the animation? And likewise for the incoming document. If visibility state is being used for say stopping some media being played, it makes sense to flip the state before

MemShrink Meeting - Today, 28 Apr 2015 at 1:00pm PDT

The next MemShrink meeting is brought to you by debuggerMallocSizeOf: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158257 The wiki page for this meeting is at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink Agenda: * Prioritize unprioriti

Re: RFC: Navigation transitions

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Christopher Lord wrote: > I'd appreciate any feedback (even if it's "You're an idiot and this is not > how we go about this") before taking this any further. Doesn't this increase the effective page transition latency by adding the animation duration to the page

Re: RFC: Navigation transitions

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Christopher Lord wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> This is awesome!! I completely agree that the Google proposal is much >> too complicated for an initial take on solving transitions. >> >> I agree with Anne that this should

Re: Announcing Operation Instrument

This is built on top of the docshell ProfileTimelineMarkers. There is a marker for the start of the traced operation and another for the end of the traced operation. The RAII class mozilla::AutoTimelineMarker simply adds these start and end markers on construction and destruction respectively (but

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Personally, I was surprised when I first learned that override/final > can only be used on virtual functions. I was definitely unaware that > override/final imply virtual until I read this thread. It seems David > Baron also didn't know. So

Re: RFC: Navigation transitions

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > This is awesome!! I completely agree that the Google proposal is much > too complicated for an initial take on solving transitions. > > I agree with Anne that this should be doable by adding CSS rules to a > normal stylesheet rather than usi

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Well, we're not talking about changing C++. ;-) My understanding is that the C++ committee will never change the meaning of existing programs without extremely compelling reason, so if override currently implies virtual, I think we can safe

Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP

On 24/04/15 23:06, Roger Hågensen wrote: > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 2:56:21 PM UTC+2, Gervase Markham > wrote: >> This makes checking in with the browser maker a necessary >> prerequisite for secure connections. That has problems. > > How so? Certificates have to be checked today as well (if

Re: NS_LITERAL_CSTRING

Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2015-04-27 6:29 AM, Neil wrote: I found the following in-tree examples, none of which would have worked with NS_LITERAL_STRING: These are terrible! But what should we replace them with? 1. Change all of those static const char arrays back into #define 2. Invent