Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

As XPConnect module owner, I'd like to get it in record that we will almost certainly not take this or any support code for it (i.e. code in js-ctypes) in mozilla-central. On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: > On 1/3/2016 10:24 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo)

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

On 3/01/2016 15:19, Jesper Kristensen wrote: Mozilla should officially maintain the en-US dictionary on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/ , like Mozilla officially maintains the language packs. I've raised https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1236375. BTW, I

Re: Thanks for all the great teamwork with the Sheriffs in 2015!

Sheriffs make developers' lives easier. Thank you, sheriffs. Nick On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Carsten Book wrote: > Hi, > > Sheriffing is not just about Checkins, Uplifts and Backouts - its also a > lot of teamwork with different Groups and our Community like Developers,

Re: Intent to ship: referrerpolicy attribute

currently there is no nice way to check which attribute values are implemented afaik. So far web platform tests haven't been a blocker (so I was told) but if that's something we want to change that's fine with me. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: > As XPConnect module owner, I'd like to get it in record that we will almost > certainly not take this or any support code for it (i.e. code in js-ctypes) > in mozilla-central. > > Well, I was already have a modified

Re: Intent to ship: referrerpolicy attribute

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Franziskus Kiefer wrote: > currently there is no nice way to check which attribute values are > implemented afaik. There should be, per the specification discussion. E.g., function isSupported(token) { var ele =

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

Why not use webidl to expose the apis you want in workers? On Jan 3, 2016 8:08 PM, "罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo)" wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Bobby Holley > wrote: > >> As XPConnect module owner, I'd like to get it in record that we will >>

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: > On 1/3/2016 10:24 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > >> So that we could be able to access xpcom in worker. >> And we could be able to implement thunderbird new msg protocol in pure >> javascript >> > > I will point out

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

What is the motivation for this work? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

On 3/01/2016 15:19, Jesper Kristensen wrote: Creating a second add-on with a different extension ID will not fix things, only make them worse. Now users have two en-us dictionaries to choose from, with no information telling which one is better. All existing users are stranded on the old

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

So that we could be able to access xpcom in worker. And we could be able to implement thunderbird new msg protocol in pure javascript On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Josh Matthews wrote: > What is the motivation for this work? > >

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

On 2/01/2016 12:37, Pascal Chevrel wrote: Le 02/01/2016 12:07, Jörg Knobloch a écrit : It is very unfortunate that this add-on maintained by "jooliaan" is so badly out of date. I don't know how to contact the author. I suggest that he synchronise the add-on with the Mozilla maintained en-US

I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

1、After my investigation, I think it's possible to implement XPConnect with JS-Ctypes. 2、And more than that,we could be possible to override Native C++ XPCOM components with JS-Ctypes. 3、For support the full functional XPConnect in JS-Ctypes, we need to be able to pass the JSContext parameter

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

Den 03-01-2016 kl. 13:05 skrev Jörg Knobloch: On 2/01/2016 12:37, Pascal Chevrel wrote: Le 02/01/2016 12:07, Jörg Knobloch a écrit : It is very unfortunate that this add-on maintained by "jooliaan" is so badly out of date. I don't know how to contact the author. I suggest that he synchronise

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

Den 03-01-2016 kl. 17:02 skrev Jörg Knobloch: As the only dictionary maintained by Mozilla, Mozilla's en-US dictionary is a special case. I don't think it is that special. Some Firefox locales other than en-US ship with built in dictionaries. For those, the add-on could be derived from the

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:35 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller < dtel...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Accessing XPCOM in a worker will most likely break the garbage-collector > in novel and interesting ways, so I don't suggest heading in that > direction. > > I'd like to hear more information about that, For

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

Well, XPConnect is designed for the main thread, and many of the things it does assume that everything takes place on the main thread. An example, from the topic of my head: whenever objects cross between JavaScript and C++ through XPConnect, they need to be retained in hashtables to preserve

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller < dtel...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Well, XPConnect is designed for the main thread, and many of the things > it does assume that everything takes place on the main thread. > > An example, from the topic of my head: whenever objects cross

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

Accessing XPCOM in a worker will most likely break the garbage-collector in novel and interesting ways, so I don't suggest heading in that direction. Cheers, David On 03/01/16 17:24, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > So that we could be able to access xpcom in worker. > And we could be able to

Re: I was trying to implement the XPConnect with JS-Ctypes, is that would be a good idea?

On 1/3/2016 10:24 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: So that we could be able to access xpcom in worker. And we could be able to implement thunderbird new msg protocol in pure javascript I will point out that Thunderbird developers are already looking into replacing the xpcom use of message

Re: Maintaining the en-US dictionary that ships with Mozilla products

On 3/01/2016 19:11, Jesper Kristensen wrote: I don't think it is that special. Some Firefox locales other than en-US ship with built in dictionaries. For those, the add-on could be derived from the source of the Firefox locale. It is special since Mozilla maintain the dictionary, they don't