On 01 Nov 2014, at 20:50, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer should understand asynchronous Promise operations, preferably
the OS.File promises
We shouldn't be landing new code that uses Promise.jsm in
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Mike de Boer mdeb...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 01 Nov 2014, at 20:50, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer should understand asynchronous Promise operations,
preferably the OS.File
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 11:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
This looks like toolkit/ stuff.
If you can segment this in small patches, I can try and review it.
Cheers,
David
How small are we talking? Other than making the tests a separate patch, I'm
not sure splitting
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1093480
Comment 0:
I think I will break this patch up into several incremental patches:
* Inline API documentation, errors and basic infrastructure (stack of
transactions, PromiseAction, isInTransaction)
* doTransaction
* undoTransaction
*
This looks like toolkit/ stuff.
If you can segment this in small patches, I can try and review it.
Cheers,
David
On 01/11/14 20:42, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
In a couple weeks I'll be doing some work on Firefox-as-a-platform-SDK
(replacement for XULRunner) and addon infrastructure work.
Current source code:
http://sourceforge.net/p/verbosio/templates/code/ci/default/tree/src/transactions/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
In a couple weeks I'll be doing some work on Firefox-as-a-platform-SDK
(replacement for XULRunner) and addon infrastructure work. Part of that latter
bit would be support for asynchronous file operations in the AddonManager.
The file operations, however, have to be revertable in the face of an
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer should understand asynchronous Promise operations, preferably
the OS.File promises
We shouldn't be landing new code that uses Promise.jsm in mozilla-central.
- Kyle
___
On Saturday, November 1, 2014 12:50:24 PM UTC-7, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer should understand asynchronous Promise operations, preferably
the OS.File promises
We shouldn't be landing new code that uses Promise.jsm in
The differences are as follows:
- DOM Promise don't implement Promise.defer;
- the scheduling of asynchronous tasks will sometimes be different.
If you rely on neither, you should be ok. Task.jsm will be migrated to
DOM Promise once we are satisfied that it doesn't break anything on m-c.
Cheers,
10 matches
Mail list logo
