This has now relanded.
The behavior is prefable, and we create a lazily-resolved shim object if
Components is not defined. I've aliased certain Ci entries to the
associated DOM constructors (that is,
Components.interfaces.nsIXMLHttpRequest === window.XMLHttpRequest) so that
interface constants Jus
I'd suggest removing Ci altogether and shipping a shim for the empty root
object (with a deprecation warning) for release only. Thus, developers may be
alarmed without the users noticing at first. Then sometime in the future the
shim can be removed altogether.
___
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:59:02 AM UTC-8, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2013-03-05 1:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
> > Is shipping it on nightly+aurora but flipping off on beta+release for a
>
> >> cycle or two an option?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > It would take some fiddling, but I could the appropriat
On 06/03/13 11:55, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Bustage detection rate isn't just a function of the user populations on
> each channel; it's also a function of time. Six months of testing on beta
> is better than six weeks. I don't know how much b
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> This line of reasoning can be dangerous, given the presence of
> browser-specific code (e.g. if (firefox) { /* use Ci! */ }). But we're
> in "estimates of likelihood of bustage based on intuition" territory,
> which can make it difficult to hav
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> That said, making different implementations of the Web platform
> (i.e., different browsers) converge so that authors can rely on
> standard behavior is a goal. The pieces of that that we have
> control over are adding and removing things f
On 2013-03-05 1:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Is shipping it on nightly+aurora but flipping off on beta+release for a
cycle or two an option?
It would take some fiddling, but I could the appropriate machinery to do
that, sure. I'd still like to avoid doing it, but it's probably worth
having the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> This makes sense in terms of |if (Components)| browser detection. But if a
> site is grabbing interface constants off of nsIDOMFoo interfaces, it seems
> very unlikely that said site would work in another browser.
This line of reasoning can b
On Tuesday 2013-03-05 11:36 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> > I don't really have faith in our ability to "evangelize heavily" on this
> > issue (outside of what we've already done) without flipping the switch.
> > This is why I want to ship it, f
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> This makes sense in terms of |if (Components)| browser detection. But if a
> site is grabbing interface constants off of nsIDOMFoo interfaces, it seems
> very unlikely that said site would work in another browser. The other
> problem with shi
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> I don't really have faith in our ability to "evangelize heavily" on this
> issue (outside of what we've already done) without flipping the switch.
> This is why I want to ship it, figure out which sites are broken, and only
> put in shims if w
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Johnathan Nightingale
wrote:
> Our market research tells us that most people on the web have Firefox
> installed - so the fight on desktop isn't over users, per se, it's over
> usage. I believe (intuition, not data) that busted sites are very much a
> thing that pu
On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>> I definitely think that we should have some backwards compat shim in place
>> for quite some time and evangelize heavily in the mean time, and hopefully
>> one day we will be able to completely remove those shims... :/
>
> I don't really have fait
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/5/13 1:43 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand Does this include content-attached
> XBL? Or is this guaranteed to be actual web page scripts?
It does not include XBL - we specifically check for that in the t
On 3/5/13 1:43 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Which channel(s) does the 10% number come from?
Release WINNT. Nightly population appears to be closer to 6%, about 2/3rds
of which are accesses to Ci.
Just to make sure I understand Does this
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Which channel(s) does the 10% number come from?
Release WINNT. Nightly population appears to be closer to 6%, about 2/3rds
of which are accesses to Ci.
> I definitely think that we should have some backwards compat shim in place
> for qui
Which channel(s) does the 10% number come from? Our past experience has
shown that users on our Release channel examine a much broader portion
of the old web/intranets that can be using this kind of thing than our
Beta population, and Beta in turn much more than Aurora. I definitely
think tha
On 3/5/2013 12:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Peter has suggested making Components.interfaces.nsIXMLHttpRequest ==
window.XMLHttpRequest, for what it's worth.
Yes. I think this shim could be implemented entirely in JS:
window.Components = { interfaces: { nsIXMLHttpRequest:
window.XMLHttpReques
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/5/13 12:01 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> They were embarrassed and fixed their code
>>
>
> They weren't embarrassed and didn't fix their code. And since we relanded
> "netscape" they don't really have incentive to...
>
Well, I interpret
On 3/5/13 12:01 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
They were embarrassed and fixed their code
They weren't embarrassed and didn't fix their code. And since we
relanded "netscape" they don't really have incentive to...
Of course now their sniffing relies on at least three separate things
all of which
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 3/4/2013 6:10 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> Q: Will this break websites?
>> A: Some, probably. Telemetry indicates that a bit under 10% of users
>> encounter at least one reference to Components during their browsing
>> session. Approxim
On 3/4/2013 6:10 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Q: Will this break websites?
A: Some, probably. Telemetry indicates that a bit under 10% of users
encounter at least one reference to Components during their browsing
session. Approximately half of these appear to be simple accesses of the
object itself an
Hi All,
This is a friendly notice that the Components object is finally about to
disappear for web content. This is something we've been planning for years,
and we believe that all the necessary pieces are now in place. The patches
are ready to land, pending a final try run.
Hopefully, this shoul
23 matches
Mail list logo
