On 2014-04-08, 6:10 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
I wonder whether the real problem here is that we have too many
bad tests that report false negatives, and these bad tests are
reducing the value of our testsuite in general. Tests also need
to be well documented so that people can understand what a
On 2014-04-09, 6:46 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 4/9/14, 11:48 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I feel a lot of people just shrug shoulders and allow the test to be
disabled (I'm guilty of it as much as anyone). From my perspective, it's
difficult to convince the powers at be that fixing intermittent
On 2014-04-15, 6:52 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I'd like to get this checked in so that we can either have it enabled by
default in nightlies (and nightlies only), or at least allow it enabled via
a pref. However, there's one issue -- the LibOVR library has a
not-fully-free-software license
On 2014-04-15, 5:34 PM, K. Gadd wrote:
Arguably if you wait for other vendors to expose VR before you do it,
you'll end up having to implement a sub-standard proprietary API like
you did with Web Audio. If you're first to the market (even with a
prototype that's preffed off), you can exert a lot
On 2014-04-15, 5:58 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
On 15/04/2014 22:34, K. Gadd wrote:
Arguably if you wait for other vendors to expose VR before you do it,
you'll end up having to implement a sub-standard proprietary API like
you did with Web Audio.
We had an alternative implementation + API (
On 2014-04-15, 7:14 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
On 16/04/2014 00:05, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
We just released rr 1.2 and I think this would be a good time for
people to
try to use it for one of the tasks it was designed for: debugging
intermittent test failures.
This is awesome! Three
On 2014-04-15, 7:14 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm asking because the Web has so far mostly been a common denominator,
conservative platform.
On 2014-04-16, 10:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 4/16/2014 9:30 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Allows pages to send a beacon HTTP request. Beacons are allowed a
limited subset of HTTP (only a few content types), and the JS cannot
receive the content of the response. However, beacon requests
On 2014-04-16, 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Andreas Gal andreas@gmail.com wrote:
Innovation happens all over the place, and we iterate towards a stable,
standardized point after innovation happened.
One of the problems we face with iterating
On 2014-04-16, 2:25 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 4/16/2014 2:18 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
I don't know about problematic, but ISTM that it might be useless.
If people disable sendBeacon in an effort to avoid tracking, then the
trackers can always just test and polyfill with XHR. If you
On 2014-04-16, 12:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Richard Barnes rbar...@mozilla.com wrote:
The specification is currently under development in W3C, but has been
substantially stable for a while.
http://www.w3.org/TR/beacon/
On 2014-04-16, 5:50 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
The question was simply are there non-tracking use-cases for
sendBeacon, and it sounds like the simple answer is yes. Still not
clear how common they will be relative to the tracking use cases in
practice, though. What we do in terms of UI and exposing
On 2014-04-17, 12:32 PM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Dehydra's documentation warns against using it due to its not having
been updated in some time. Does that mean that it's safe to archive this
content?
Yes.
___
dev-platform mailing list
On 2014-04-22, 8:09 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
We already do not expose MS-DOS encodings other than Cyrillic to the
Web. We still expose them to Firefox extensions in some APIs.
Telemetry shows that usage varies from non-existent to extremely rare
(28 sessions out of 180.82 million sessions for
On 2014-04-22, 9:24 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I'm somewhat worried that we might break some Web pages for users who are
not fairly represented in our Telemetry data, and that we may not hear about
this before this change hits the release channel.
We have already stopped exposing these encodings
Do we currently return NS_OK from Necko in such circumstances or another
error code?
On 2014-04-22, 4:21 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Hey all,
In the networking team we're about to introduce an error code for
partial transfers (see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237623). It will
On 2014-04-22, 9:59 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/22/14, 9:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Do we currently return NS_OK from Necko in such circumstances or another
error code?
Currently we return NS_OK, so the necko client thinks the transfer
completed successfully.
That seems like a huge
Thanks for sending this out, Brian! Can you please be more specific
about which subset of the API surface you're planning to ship?
Thanks,
Ehsan
On 2014-04-18, 1:23 AM, Brian Birtles wrote:
Summary: Allow web authors to inspect/debug/control running CSS (and
SVG) animations and create new
Do you know if other UAs already ship this, or have plans for doing so?
On 2014-04-17, 9:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
We've been shipping :scope in querySelector(All) for a while now,
enabled in nightly/aurora, disabled in beta/release.
The spec is no longer trying to do wild and wooly stuff
Hi everyone,
As many of you are already aware, we have been working hard towards making
it possible to express our Web facing Javascript APIs in WebIDL. These
.webidl files can be found under dom/webidl in mozilla-central. Over the
past few years we have been trying to be more aware and
On 2014-04-24, 6:36 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
(I want to avoid entangling the dom/webidl plan with this discussion,
which is why I forked the thread)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
Following up on this, people
On 2014-04-24, 7:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 07:03:09PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-04-24, 8:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
However, especially in the context of slimming down our own set of
encoding converters, it's rather demotivating to see that at least
On 2014-04-25, 3:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
* Are we building and shipping dead code in ICU on B2G?
No. That is at least partly covered by bug 864843.
Using system ICU seems wrong in terms of correctness. That's
Note that I filed 1002263 for this.
On 2014-04-27, 7:58 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Sunday 2014-04-27 09:29 -0700, Dave Hylands wrote:
Every time I send an email to dev-platform, I get the following email as a
reply.
Can we get supp...@lativio.com removed from the mailing list?
To answer
On 2014-04-28, 8:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
New question:
We have various scriptable nsIFoo stuff (e.g. nsIParserService,
nsIScriptableUConv) on the fringes of Gecko for use by mailnews, the
Firefox UI or extensions. Since Gaia doesn't use XPCOM, those things
are dead code in B2G, right? Would
On 2014-04-29, 4:46 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-04-28, 10:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2014-04-28, 8:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote
On 2014-04-30, 9:41 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
On 30/04/14 15:40, Gavin Sharp wrote:
I thought the performance problems in question were related to memory
use/worker initialization. But
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981085#c0 doesn't really
have any useful detail.
On 2014-04-30, 10:58 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
2. Performance: OS.File's performance on b2g was apparently worse than
the XPCOM I/O function, it seems. I'm curious to know which device you
ran the benchmarks on, and what the benchmarks actually tested. It
could be that those
Hi Rik,
How extensive is our testing of this feature? I'm very surprised that
bug 1004499 was not caught by a test when you landed this.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
Primary eng emails
caban...@adobe.com
*Spec*
Another question: Trevor had some concerns over this API in bug 958241.
Were those concerns sufficiently addressed?
Thanks!
Ehsan
On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
Primary eng emails
caban...@adobe.com
*Spec*
On 2014-05-01, 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote:
No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the
method changed. Roc suggested the new name and people liked it better. I
believe Ian stated that he would update the WHATWG version when
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2014-05-01, 2:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg
Thanks, Martin!
Do you know if other UAs are also implementing this API?
On 2014-05-02, 4:09 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
Summary:
WebRTC enables peer-to-peer communications. Identity features enable the
identification of WebRTC peers using a generic identity provider interface.
Stream
On 2014-05-08, 5:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote:
The Implementations are free to return a context that implements a higher
version part violates the above requirement 1. in your email, The WebGL
working group wants web
On 2014-05-08, 8:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote:
WebGL is low-level and generalistic enough that it is not specifically a
3d graphics API. I prefer to call it a low-level or generalistic graphics
API.
Fair, forgot
On 2014-05-12, 9:36 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
Since bug 806279 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=806279 it's
fairly trivial to extend CC support to new pointer and container types.
Just implement ImplCycleCollectionUnlink and ImplCycleCollectionTraverse.
The possibly bigger difficulty
On 2014-05-13, 7:47 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 5/12/2014 4:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
So I'd like to propose that our C++ style require one-arg constructors
to be marked explicit unless there's a clear comment explaining why
the constructor is implicit.
Seems there's general agreement.
On 2014-05-13, 9:55 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
I recently saw this bug about implementing navigator.getFeature,
wouldn't it make sense for this to be like hardware.memory, but
hardware.cores?
No, because that would have all of the same issues as the current API.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-05-13, 10:54 AM, Eli Grey wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
supporting a worker pool that actually scales to how many cores you have
available
1) What is an available core to you? An available core to me is a
core that I can use
On 2014-05-13, 11:14 AM, Eli Grey wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong. An available core is a core which your
application can use to run computations on. If another code is
already
On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
...
That is not the point of this attribute. It's just a hint for
the author
so he can tune his
On 2014-05-20, 6:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
But I believe that that would be a pretty crappy private browsing
feature which I don't think anyone here would argue for.
Private browsing is mainly about giving you
On 2014-05-20, 9:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Wednesday 2014-05-21 11:51 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nicolas Silva nical.si...@gmail.comwrote:
Honestly, I don't mean to start a bikeshed about whether we should enforce
strict rules about this
On 2014-05-19, 10:25 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
It's used to get stacks within the deadlock detector, but I'm not sure
if that's necessary, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to
replace if it is necessary.
You would think so, but I tried in bug 939231 and failed.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-05-20, 10:00 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
On 5/20/2014 8:37 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
FWIW, I argued against nested namespaces a few years ago (couldn't
find a link to it through Google unfortunately) and people let me
win that battle by allowing me to edit the coding style to prohibit
On 2014-05-21, 7:40 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote:
Sorry, my example was not clear enough. The issue with using namespace +
unifoed builds is that the using namespace declaration applies to all
(or most) of the headers included in the unified translation unit. So
using namespace mozilla at the top of
On 2014-05-21, 4:38 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
On 20.05.2014 23:33, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-05-20, 2:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Dolske dol...@mozilla.com
wrote:
However we do implement some additional features in private browsing
mode
On 2014-05-21, 5:15 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 5/21/14, 1:51 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
Or, alternatively, attempt to automate this with Autoland
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828).
Is anyone actively working on Autoland? Rail had been working on
Autoland, but when I spoke
On 2014-05-29, 1:20 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Wednesday 2014-05-28 21:03 -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
static T inc(T aPtr) { return IntrinsicAddSubT::add(aPtr, 1); }
static T dec(T aPtr) { return IntrinsicAddSubT::sub(aPtr, 1); }
static T or_( T aPtr, T aVal) { return
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Paolo Amadini paolo.02@amadzone.org
wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:59 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I'm _pretty_ sure that the answer is no for
mochitest-chrome at least.
Are we running these tests out-of-tree in other environments?
Do you mean by just opening
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/2/14, 3:34 PM, Paolo Amadini wrote:
It seems to me that if we don't have external compatibility needs, we
might as well move mochitests to use a set of assertion methods that is
the same as xpcshell and maybe other
On 2014-06-02, 5:33 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
Do either of you have reasoning for that other than it looks better
to me? I personally think consistency trumps any personal preferences
based on length/concision, as long as what we end up with isn't
unreasonably long/verbose.
I have two reasons:
On 2014-06-02, 9:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/2/14, 5:33 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
Do either of you have reasoning for that other than it looks better
to me?
My personal experience is that when I try to write xpcshell tests the
amount of time it takes to type the test function names is very
On 2014-06-03, 5:57 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Nathan Froyd froy...@mozilla.com wrote:
Assuming that ICU is already compiled with the moral equivalent of GCC's
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections or MSVC's /Gy, then statically linking ICU
into libxul should
On 2014-06-03, 1:49 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I think what xpcshell has now and what testharness says and what's being
proposed (with the Assert. prefix) are unreasonably long/verbose.
I suspected this is where we'd end up :)
On 2014-06-03, 2:17 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
I won't argue that a great case has been made :) But I see inherent
value in consistency (both in the implementations and in the
user-exposed API) for assertions across our in-tree test suites (or at
least, across mochitest-based harnesses and
On 2014-06-03, 2:37 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows-canary-and.html
What is the status of Firefox builds for Win64? When Mozilla releases
Win64 builds (again), we'll be seen as reacting to Google when we've
actually been working on it for a
On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M
This is so amazing. As a
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names.
And I am arguing against using the CommonJS semantics. If we are adding
new
On 2014-06-04, 1:42 PM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
mailto:ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote
On 2014-06-04, 3:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com
mailto:bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
Holy moly this is incredible! So this means that I can stop reading
bugmail, and rely entirely on the dashboard with no loss of
On 2014-06-04, 4:45 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
Bug 996061 has now landed on inbound. Prior to this bug, we included
non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces into the internal typelibs shipped with
Firefox. This is no longer the case: interfaces that are not marked
[scriptable] and are not referenced
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch gijskruitbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 04/06/2014 07:34, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see
On 2014-06-05, 2:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/4/14, 11:30 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
- benefits to shared API/implementation seem uncontroversial
Agreed.
- specifically, consistency between mochitest/SimpleTest-based
harnesses (mochitest-plain/mochitest-chrome/mochitest-browser) and
On 2014-06-06, 1:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/6/14, 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
That will be the big question, yes.
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Tryrev=e26ab6d5e1e0 says we have quite a
number of things that are in fact assuming that 5 and 5 should test
is(). I'm not sure how much I
On 2014-06-06, 4:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/6/14, 3:19 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Can we make is() do those checks explicitly and if neither of these
cases apply, fall back to a non-strict equality check?
Yes. As in, we could make it special-case the number-to-string compare
and use
On 2014-06-06, 10:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
But rather than making the
implementation of is() be more complex and/or more relaxed, could we
instead convert those tests to either
is_relaxed(a, b)
or
ok(a == b)
Yes, we could. It's a largish number of tests (several hundred; a number
have
On 2014-06-11, 1:42 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
I'd very much like to see this as well!
The C++11 attribute syntax might be a good way to accomplish this without
inventing new syntax. For example, the standard could define an exhaustive
attribute on a switch statement for an enumeration:
enum
On 2014-06-16, 1:23 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Hello,
I am working on providing weekly code coverage of Firefox code.
For now, I am able to do that for C/C++ code.
Awesome, where can we find those reports?
Thanks!
Ehsan
___
dev-platform mailing
On 2014-06-14, 10:58 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Looks good.
A classic problem we have had is with boolean parameters, which are hard
to read at call sites. We currently solve that by turning them into enum
or flag parameters, but named parameters would be a lighter-weight
alternative.
On 2014-06-18, 2:30 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
Works for me.
For the function override in the first place though, the names of the
parameters are ignored, right?
Yes. Basically, I think we should not make the names of the arguments
part of the function's type, which would imply that the
I believe you are on the wrong mailing list!
On 2014-06-26, 5:49 AM, Alonze wrote:
Excuse me, could anyone explain me a concept of the differnce between
System.Web and System.Net?
And how to use two of these?
Thank you,
Aom
___
dev-platform
Yes, please! With WebCrypto being implemented, there is very little
reason for us to keep these functions around. I have heard that there
are some enterprise applications that use these APIs and hopefully they
will have enough time to migrate away from using them by the time that
we ship
I can think of EME, the Mobile ID API, and WebCrypto which are missing
from this list off the top of my head.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-06-26, 6:09 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Hi! The docs team is trying to build our schedule for the next quarter
or two, and part of that is deciding which APIs to
On 2014-07-02, 3:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote:
we are
looking to implement an optional attribute that allows authors to disable
the default context menu items so only the applications items are shown.
I think we shouldn't
pages do not have a useful custom context
menu? Would you say the same thing about, let's say, Google Docs? The
Google Docs custom context menus seem like a great use case for this to me.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-07-02 11:30, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-07-02, 3:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote
to the UA items. Personally whenever I am right clicking on
something, it usually to get to a UA option; rarely do I ever use the custom
options (either way). With this proposal, my most used options are further
away.
On 2014-07-02 11:30, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-07-02, 3:12 AM, Henri
On 2014-07-02, 4:16 PM, Dao wrote:
On 02.07.2014 20:51, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
We can still show the UA
context menu if you hold down shift like we do today though.
What would be the equivalent to that on Firefox OS?
I don't think we have a similar way to do this in Firefox OS.
Cheers,
Ehsan
That seems pretty bad. I think we should at least stop supporting it
for Web content. David, what do you think?
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-07-07, 4:56 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
Summary:
Attackers can extract secret URL components (e.g. session IDs, oauth
tokens) using @-moz-document. Using the
We should keep in mind that sometimes due to startup crashes, we don't
get to run any of the code in Firefox, so we can't gate the crash report
submission on that code at least in the case of startup crashes.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-07-05, 8:21 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
I haven't
On 2014-07-08, 6:34 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Monday 2014-07-07 15:18 -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
That seems pretty bad. I think we should at least stop supporting
it for Web content. David, what do you think?
I'm ok with restricting it to UA and user style sheets, although if
we're
Great feature, Byron!
I have three feature requests:
1. Can we get a Any direct relationship field in the Relationship
drop-down which means Assignee || Reporter || QA Contact || CC'ed ||
Mentoring (basically all cases except Watching)? In the majority of
cases I want the same thing to
On 2014-07-14, 9:50 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
1. Can we get a Any direct relationship field in the Relationship
drop-down which means Assignee || Reporter || QA Contact || CC'ed ||
Mentoring (basically all cases except Watching)? In the majority of
cases I want the same thing
On 2014-07-14, 7:22 AM, tzi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+3, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/14 18:35, Vasilis wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of
On 2014-07-15, 1:04 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-07-14, 9:50 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
1. Can we get a Any direct relationship field in the Relationship
drop-down which means Assignee || Reporter || QA Contact || CC'ed ||
Mentoring (basically all cases
Should we make DebugOnly MOZ_STACK_CLASS?
On 2014-07-15, 9:21 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Hi,
The comment at the top of mfbt/DebugOnly.h includes this text:
* Note that DebugOnly instances still take up one byte of space, plus padding,
* when used as members of structs.
I'm in the
Hi Yuan,
Do we have feedback from other browser vendors on these APIs? Is there
agreement on them?
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-07-18, 5:29 AM, Yuan Xulei(袁徐磊) wrote:
Hi all,/
Summary/:
These are subclasses of Promise. Allow promise to be canceled or send
progress notification. They are planned
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Dave Hylands dhyla...@mozilla.com wrote:
Currently, we have navigator.getDeviceStorage and
navigator.getDeviceStorages
We're looking to expand device storage to add support for more virtual
storage areas, like DropBox, or GoogleDrive, etc.
See bug 1035053
On 2014-07-18, 5:28 PM, Dave Hylands wrote:
*From: *Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
*To: *Dave Hylands dhyla...@mozilla.com
*Cc: *dev-platform dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
*Sent: *Friday, July 18
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Something like this is likely to get standardized eventually. But I think
it will take longer than we are willing to wait.
In the meantime we should only expose this API to pages that have
permission to use DeviceStorage,
On 2014-07-20, 10:43 PM, mc...@mozilla.com wrote:
Perhaps adding an
EventListener on Window would be enough, so that we can keep the same API?
As Dave said, we might still need to propose a set of WebAPI for Virutal Device
Storage (Then we can have apps like dropboxstorage app,
On 2014-07-21, 12:22 PM, Tyler Smith wrote:
Summary: New Push API to replace the current specification for SimplePush.
Purposes include
1) Switching to Promise, which was sorely needed.
2) Establishing that the data field of messages is required.
3) Establishing that all background
,
the first step here is to figure out where should new event handler be
added?
Since there is not only new event handler been added but also a set of
APIs potentially,
I support to Dave' suggestion.
*寄件者: *Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg
On 2014-07-21, 4:25 PM, nmara...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:00:13 AM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-07-21, 12:22 PM, Tyler Smith wrote:
Summary: New Push API to replace the current specification for SimplePush.
Purposes include
1) Switching to Promise, which
storage, will discuss it in dev-webapi as
well and back to dev-platform when we are going to implement it.
Hi Dave and Ehsan,
May I know your suggestion?
Thanks,
Sincerely yours.
*寄件者: *Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg
Wolfgang might be interested in this!
On 2014-07-24, 11:21 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in making the Qt toolkit usable again, especially on Linux.
While I don't think we can ever actually use it for more platforms, except
maybe some mobile devices, it is still something I
On 2014-08-04, 7:09 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:42:07PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:33:55AM -0700, Kyle Huey
On 2014-08-06, 1:32 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/6/2014 1:20 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
I don't understand this sentence, but I strongly oppose automatically
clearing Static*Ptr in the static destructor in any build. In the past
we have had static comptr cause final release of objects
On 2014-08-08, 11:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/8/2014 11:25 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
The problem I was mentioning is not related to the leak at all. What
if one of these destructors runs code that writes something to the
disk for example, which we expect to go to the disk before we
On 2014-08-08, 12:20 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
- Original Message -
OK, I guess that's better than what we have now... Still I thought the
goal of this class is to avoid static initializers, so why do we want a
trivial destructor for it in release builds?
So the compiler won't generate
401 - 500 of 1215 matches
Mail list logo
