Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:57:58 AM UTC-7, Jim Blandy wrote: > As an offer of help, from a group whose charter covers this work, that's > very welcome. I felt that I was being shepherded into something on behalf > of others for whom I cannot speak, which was uncomfortable! > > For my own

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

As an offer of help, from a group whose charter covers this work, that's very welcome. I felt that I was being shepherded into something on behalf of others for whom I cannot speak, which was uncomfortable! For my own sake, I am disinclined to participate in a standardization effort outside of

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 04/09/17 23:34, Jim Blandy wrote: On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 AM, David Burns wrote: I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I, like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails appear to think that implementing the

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 AM, David Burns wrote: > I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I, like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I, like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to making sure we have the same semantics. As mentioned by Karl earlier, it

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 31/08/17 21:22, Jack Moffitt wrote: Is there another alternative besides CDP you'd like to propose? I don't have an alternate proposal, and I feel like I must have been unclear at some point. I'm not saying "this is bad, period". I'm certainly not saying "this is bad because it isn't

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-7, James Graham wrote: > If people are starting to standardise not just the protocol but also the > semantics of CDP, that's great. But people tend to vastly underestimate > how long standardisation will take, and overestimate the resources that >

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Certain bits of the original post are getting more emphasis than I had anticipated. Let me try to clarify why we in Devtools want this change or something like it. The primary goals here are not related to automation and testing. They are: - to allow Devtools to migrate the console and the JS

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

> I entirely agree that the current Firefox protocol is also proprietary. > However I also assumed that it's considered an internal implementation > detail rather than something we would expect people to interoperate with. If > that wasn't the case then I apologise: I should have complained

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Google has indicated a willingness to participate in standardizing the protocol. If we switch from a devtools protocol used only by us to a tooling protocol used by the rest of the industry, that is strictly an improvement over the status quo, even if our implementation deviates from the others'

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 2:51:41 AM UTC-7, James Graham wrote: > On 31/08/17 02:14, Michael Smith wrote: > > On 8/30/2017 15:56, David Burns wrote: > > > Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this > > spec'ed properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 31/08/17 19:42, Jim Blandy wrote: Some possibly missing context: Mozilla Devtools wants to see this implemented for our own use. After much discussion last summer in London, the Firefox Devtools team decided to adopt the Chrome Debugging Protocol for the console and the JavaScript debugger.

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:50 AM, James Graham wrote: > In general it seems unfortunate if we are deciding to implement a > proprietary protocol rather than opting to either extend something that is > already a standard (e.g. WebDriver) or perform standardisation work >

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 8/30/17 6:14 PM, Michael Smith wrote: On 8/30/2017 18:04, Josh Matthews wrote: > One clarification - while all of the Servo codebase exists in mozilla-central/servo/, only the dependencies used by Stylo are vendored in third-party/rust. That means that neither hyper nor tokio are vendored

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Some possibly missing context: Mozilla Devtools wants to see this implemented for our own use. After much discussion last summer in London, the Firefox Devtools team decided to adopt the Chrome Debugging Protocol for the console and the JavaScript debugger. (The cases for converting the other

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Definitely, yes. As Michael said, some core subset of the protocol is already a de-facto standard. The process of actual specification, with committees and processes and imprimaturs and all that, is getting started, with interest from several major players, including Microsoft and Google. On Wed,

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017, at 08:20 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I assume this is going to involve TLS (generally this is a requirement > for > H2). In Firefox, this is done with NSS. Does Tokio/Hyper cleanly separate > out the TLS stack so that you can do that? This was mostly answered in another

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 31/08/17 02:14, Michael Smith wrote: On 8/30/2017 15:56, David Burns wrote: > Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse engineering seems like a "fun" project but what stops people from breaking stuff without

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 8/30/2017 15:56, David Burns wrote: > Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse engineering  seems like a "fun" project but what stops people from breaking stuff without realising? Fortunately we're not

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 8/30/17 2:55 PM, Michael Smith wrote: Use of Tokio is becoming a standard in the Rust ecosystem---it's worth mentioning that Mozilla funds Tokio development [9] and employs some of its primary developers. Servo currently depends on an older version of the hyper HTTP client/server library,

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On 8/30/2017 15:25, Jet Villegas wrote: Can you summarize the desired outcomes? [...] This is potentially a very large API surface to support, and I'm skeptical about our ability to emulate Chromium's behavior when attached to devtools. The Chrome DevTools Protocol is split up into separate

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Michael, Le 31 août 2017 à 07:56, David Burns a écrit : > Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed > properly so that we have true interop here? Yeah I had the same train of thoughts than David when I read the initial message. There is

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Mozilla DevTools is exploring implementing parts of the Chrome DevTools > Protocol ("CDP") [0] in Firefox. This is an HTTP, WebSockets, and JSON > based protocol for automating and inspecting running

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse engineering seems like a "fun" project but what stops people from breaking stuff without realising? David On 30 August 2017 at 22:55, Michael Smith

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Can you summarize the desired outcomes? e.g., 1. people using devtools in Chrome can also debug Firefox 2. devtools for Chrome can be ported to Firefox 3. devtools for Firefox can be used with Chrome 4. ... This is potentially a very large API surface to support, and I'm skeptical about our

Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Hi everyone, Mozilla DevTools is exploring implementing parts of the Chrome DevTools Protocol ("CDP") [0] in Firefox. This is an HTTP, WebSockets, and JSON based protocol for automating and inspecting running browser pages. Originally built for the Chrome DevTools, it has seen wider adoption