Re: Fido U2F, two-factor authentication support

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/11/15 19:26, phow...@ccvschools.com wrote:
> This is definitely an important feature, but I'm not holding my
> breath.  I have had a lot of experience with Mozilla over the years
> and I really doubt anything will materialize in the near future.

Feeling particularly entitled today, are we?

>From the look of the bug, it seems like patches are certainly being
accepted.

Gerv


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Is that possible to implement Sqlite.jsm with ctypes so that is can works in the worker?

[David Rajchenbach-Teller]

It could be improved a bit, but the real issue is that JavaScript is a
high-level, garbage-collected, dynamic programming language, while C is
a low-level, memory-unsafe, type-unsafe, statically compiled programming
language.

I have heard a few ideas floating around on how this could be improved,
by using a radical redesign of js-ctypes based on asm.js/WebAsm, but at
the moment, I don't think that anybody is working on it.

Cheers,
 David

On 20/11/15 12:03, Philip Chee wrote:
> On 18/11/2015 16:04, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
>> Well, the main problem is that js-ctypes is very hard to use, even
>> harder to use without causing memory leaks or crashing the process.
>> Think the worst parts of both C and JavaScript together.
> 
> Are these problems inherent in ctypes or is it just that our
> implementation is broken?

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to Implement: HTML and tags

[Cameron McCormack]

Ting-Yu Lin:
> Summary: The  is used as a disclosure widget from which the user
> can
> obtain additional information or controls.  is used as a summary or
> legend of the details. To expand the details, the user could click on the
> summary or by adding a bool attribute 'open' to the details.
> 
> An example: Open the example in Chrome or Safari. http://simpl.info/details/
> 
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591737

Great work Ting-Yu, and thanks very much for picking this up!

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Is that possible to implement Sqlite.jsm with ctypes so that is can works in the worker?

[Philip Chee]

On 18/11/2015 16:04, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> Well, the main problem is that js-ctypes is very hard to use, even
> harder to use without causing memory leaks or crashing the process.
> Think the worst parts of both C and JavaScript together.

Are these problems inherent in ctypes or is it just that our
implementation is broken?

> Cheers,
>  David
> 
> On 18/11/15 08:57, Philip Chee wrote:
>> On 14/11/2015 18:21, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
>>> Actually, Sqlite.jsm does most of its work off the main thread.
>>>
>>> But yes, it would clearly be possible to reimplement Sqlite.jsm using
>>> js-ctypes for workers. If you wish to work on this, I can try and help
>>> mentoring.
>> 
>> I thought people were being encouraged to avoid using js-ctypes because
>> of "problems". However nobody has gone into detail about what those
>> alleged problems are.
>> 
>> Phil
>> 


-- 
-==-
Philip Chee , 
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: FYI: updating yasm on build machines

[Neil]

Chris Peterson wrote:


mozilla-build tools already use 1.3


When did it get upgraded? (My mozilla-build only has yasm 1.1)

--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Faster Windows builds on Try

[Aaron Klotz]

<3<3<3

On 11/19/2015 3:23 PM, Chris AtLee wrote:

Over the past months we've been working on migrating our Windows builds
from the legacy hardware machines into Amazon.

I'm very happy to announce that we've wrapped up the initial work here, and
all our Windows builds on Try are now happening in Amazon.

The biggest win from this is that our Windows builds are now nearly 30
minutes faster than they used to be. As of today, windows builds on try
generally take around 50 minutes to complete, down from 1h20 before. Our
next step is to migrate the non-try builds onto Amazon as well.

Big thanks to Rob, Mark, and the rest of our Release Engineering and
Operations team for making this possible!

Cheers,
Chris

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1199267
___
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

Fwd: [Planned] Tree Closing Window 2015-11-21 0600-1630 PST 2015-11-21 06:00 PST 330 mins

[Hal Wine]

FYI: Trees will be closed during our normal Tree Closing Window. However,
some of the work mentioned below has been deferred, so trees should be
reopened by 11:30 PT.

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:54 AM
Subject: [Planned] TCW 2015-11-21 0600-1630 PST 2015-11-21 06:00 PST 630
mins
To: all-moco-m...@mozilla.com


Issue Status:  Upcoming
Short Summary: IT will be performing the following work during the Nov
21, 2015 TCW

1217405 reset the 10ge optic in border2.scl3 xe-1/1/0
1223832 reboot buildbot master DB in scl3
1223956 Change pvtbuilds NFS mount
1223592 restart of all buildbot masters
1222532 Upgrade Zeus/Stingray/Steelapp to 10.2
1224590 replace card fw1.scl3
1210275 Reconfigure switch1.r301-4.ops.scl3 for LACP
1210276 Reconfigure switch1.r302-2.ops.scl3 for LACP
1210277 Reconfigure switch1.r302-1.ops.scl3 for LACP
1210278 Reconfigure switch1.r301-5.ops.scl3 for LACP
1210279 Reconfigure switch1.r302-4.ops.scl3 for LACP

Mozilla IT Maintenance Notification:
--

Issue Status:  Upcoming
Bug IDs:   1214712
Start Date:2015-11-21
Start Time:06:00 PST
Site:  All
Services:  Tree Closure
Impact of Work:During the bug work above brief disruptions (less
than 5 minutes)
to sites and services will occur.

If you have any questions or concerns please address them
to...@mozilla.com or visit #moc in IRC

Also, visit whistlepig.mozilla.org for all notifications.
--
m...@mozilla.com - m...@mozilla.com
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: FYI: updating yasm on build machines

[Chris Peterson]

On 11/20/15 5:09 AM, Neil wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:


mozilla-build tools already use 1.3


When did it get upgraded? (My mozilla-build only has yasm 1.1)


Last year according to bug 1113450:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1113450

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Ben Kelly]

In Firefox 44 we intend to enable Service Workers and FetchEvents by
default on desktop and android.  These features will not be enabled on
Firefox OS yet.

They has been developed behind the following preferences:

  dom.serviceWorkers.enabled
  dom.serviceWorkers.interception.enabled
  dom.serviceWorkers.interception.opaque.enabled

Chrome has been shipping Service Workers with FetchEvent since Chrome 40.

Unfortunately, I can't find a previous intent to implement for service
workers.

Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1226686
Standard:
https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html

Please let me know if you have any questions are concerns.

Thanks.

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 11/20/15 3:21 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:

The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing.  The
core functionality has been stable for a while, though.


OK.  I guess my question is whether, for example, waiting for another 
release cycle would significantly improve things here or not.  I'm not 
saying we necessarily should, just trying to understand the tradeoffs.



There are some corner cases where we differ or might differ depending on
release schedules.  For example, the spec now says that navigations should
set a RequestMode of "navigate", but neither chrome or firefox do this.  We
set "same-origin" as the spec used to say.  I believe chrome has patches in
flight to change, but we have not started yet.


OK.  That sort of thing is going to happen, as long as the spec is in flux.


Another compat issue we need to fix is returning the same
ServiceWorkerRegistration object repeatedly from certain APIs.  This was
something that changed a few times in both the spec and chrome.

Fixing these minor compat issues is on our todo list for the rest of the 45
cycle leading up to orlando.


OK.  Are there plans to uplift any of this to 44?


The webkit project's 5 year plan includes service workers:


Great, thanks.


I don't think we are missing anything significant in the service worker
spec.  Other features building on top of service workers like push,
background-sync, etc are in separate specs.


Gotcha.  Is there risk in pages assuming that if we implement the piece 
we implement then we also implement this other stuff?



I believe all these APIs are feature detectable.


Great, that should help with people not assuming stuff.


Overall I expect to get reports of compat issues.


That's fair.  Again, the main question I have is whether giving our impl 
and the spec more bake time would help with this or just push it off 
while leaving the scope of the problem about the same.  It sounds like 
you don't think it would really help, right?


-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Ben Kelly]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:

>
> Another compat issue we need to fix is returning the same
>> ServiceWorkerRegistration object repeatedly from certain APIs.  This was
>> something that changed a few times in both the spec and chrome.
>>
>> Fixing these minor compat issues is on our todo list for the rest of the
>> 45
>> cycle leading up to orlando.
>>
>
> OK.  Are there plans to uplift any of this to 44?
>

No.  I think what we have works on the sites/demos/wpt tests available
today.  We feel its compatible enough to ship.  We'll fix further compat
issues using our standard train model.


> Overall I expect to get reports of compat issues.
>>
>
> That's fair.  Again, the main question I have is whether giving our impl
> and the spec more bake time would help with this or just push it off while
> leaving the scope of the problem about the same.  It sounds like you don't
> think it would really help, right?


I think the best thing we can do right now is get a second implementation
into wide circulation.  This will highlight compat issues yes, but also
help avoid baking chrome specific behavior into all the sites using service
workers.

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 11/20/15 3:42 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:

No.  I think what we have works on the sites/demos/wpt tests available
today.  We feel its compatible enough to ship.  We'll fix further compat
issues using our standard train model.


OK.


I think the best thing we can do right now is get a second implementation
into wide circulation.  This will highlight compat issues yes, but also
help avoid baking chrome specific behavior into all the sites using service
workers.


Alright.  Sounds scary, but I trust you've thought this stuff through.

-Boris

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Brian Grinstead]

Also, webconsole logging for Service Workers is preffed behind 
devtools.webconsole.filter.serviceworkers, which will be enabled by default in 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201962.

Brian

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Ben Kelly  wrote:
> 
> In Firefox 44 we intend to enable Service Workers and FetchEvents by
> default on desktop and android.  These features will not be enabled on
> Firefox OS yet.
> 
> They has been developed behind the following preferences:
> 
>  dom.serviceWorkers.enabled
>  dom.serviceWorkers.interception.enabled
>  dom.serviceWorkers.interception.opaque.enabled
> 
> Chrome has been shipping Service Workers with FetchEvent since Chrome 40.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't find a previous intent to implement for service
> workers.
> 
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1226686
> Standard:
> https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions are concerns.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ben
> ___
> 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: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 11/20/15 1:34 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:

Please let me know if you have any questions are concerns.


I actually have a few questions.

1)  How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct?

2)  How confident are we that our implementation, Chrome's, and the spec 
all match?  I know we were working on importing some of their tests, so 
I'm guessing fairly confident, but just wanted to check.


3)  Have we heard anything from Apple or Microsoft about their plans, or 
lack thereof, for Service Workers?


4)  Are there significant parts of the spec we're not shipping yet?  Is 
Chrome shipping those parts?  Is support for those feature-detectable?


-Boris


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Ben Kelly]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Ben Kelly  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:
>
>>
>> 1)  How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct?
>>
>
> The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing.  The
> core functionality has been stable for a while, though.
>

I guess I should mention the biggest change in the spec that has not been
implemented by either chrome or firefox.

The spec now exposes the Response.url passed to the
FetchEvent.respondWith() to the outer network request.  So base URLs for
stylesheets and workers will have a different URL.  A window doing fetch()
will see a different Response.url.

This was changed so that relative path subresources in stylesheets and
workers will continue to work.

I've mentioned to google it would be helpful to do a coordinated release
for this particular spec change.  Here is the chrome issue:

  https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=553535

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 11/20/15 3:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:

I guess I should mention the biggest change in the spec that has not been
implemented by either chrome or firefox.

The spec now exposes the Response.url passed to the
FetchEvent.respondWith() to the outer network request.  So base URLs for
stylesheets and workers will have a different URL.  A window doing fetch()
will see a different Response.url.

This was changed so that relative path subresources in stylesheets and
workers will continue to work.


OK.  So here the main risk that we'll ship something that has one 
relative path behavior, people will start using it, then we will switch 
it, right?


Do we have a timeframe on when we could do the switch, ignoring for hte 
moment coordination problems with Google?


-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Ben Kelly]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:

>
> 1)  How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct?
>

The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing.  The
core functionality has been stable for a while, though.


> 2)  How confident are we that our implementation, Chrome's, and the spec
> all match?  I know we were working on importing some of their tests, so I'm
> guessing fairly confident, but just wanted to check.
>

We imported blink's web-platform-tests.  We found some spec issues with
them and tried to flow them all back to both spec and google.

There are some corner cases where we differ or might differ depending on
release schedules.  For example, the spec now says that navigations should
set a RequestMode of "navigate", but neither chrome or firefox do this.  We
set "same-origin" as the spec used to say.  I believe chrome has patches in
flight to change, but we have not started yet.

Another compat issue we need to fix is returning the same
ServiceWorkerRegistration object repeatedly from certain APIs.  This was
something that changed a few times in both the spec and chrome.

Fixing these minor compat issues is on our todo list for the rest of the 45
cycle leading up to orlando.

Also, we have implemented more of the spec in some areas than chrome.  For
example, I believe chrome's Cache API is still not complete on their
release channel.  We have a complete Cache API already shipped in FF39.


> 3)  Have we heard anything from Apple or Microsoft about their plans, or
> lack thereof, for Service Workers?
>

They have been attending face-to-face meetings, but no official
implementation announcements as far as I know.

The webkit project's 5 year plan includes service workers:

  http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/FiveYearPlanFall2015


> 4)  Are there significant parts of the spec we're not shipping yet?  Is
> Chrome shipping those parts?  Is support for those feature-detectable?
>

I don't think we are missing anything significant in the service worker
spec.  Other features building on top of service workers like push,
background-sync, etc are in separate specs.

Fetch body streams is something that was spec'd recently.  Chrome has it
partly implemented, but I don't think their shipping implementation is spec
compatible.

I believe all these APIs are feature detectable.

Overall I expect to get reports of compat issues.  I think thats inevitable
with such a large feature and complex feature.  We'll have to hash it out
in spec issues, write WPT tests, and ship the fix.  I'm not sure how else
to realistically move forward, though.

I hope that answers your questions.

Thanks.

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Performance.translateTime

[Jonas Sicking]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:
>> Though Service Workers do actually have a 'client' object which
>> represent window objects. So we could enable passing those as global
>> to the translate function.
>
> That's a good idea.  Want to raise it with the webperf WG?  Seems like it
> wouldn't be that hard to implement.

I'd be quite happy if someone else would :)

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Ben Kelly  wrote:

> I think the best thing we can do right now is get a second implementation
> into wide circulation.  This will highlight compat issues yes, but also
> help avoid baking chrome specific behavior into all the sites using service
> workers.
>

Yes. This is incredibly important. Just look at the messaging in
http://recode.net/2015/11/09/indias-flipkart-google-launch-chrome-mobile-website-replicate-apps/

Rob
-- 
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
lurpr
.a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
esn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform