Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-31 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-14 Thread fbender
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. ___

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-06 Thread yuhongbao_386
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Anthony Jones
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Gavin Sharp
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Gavin Sharp
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Kyle Huey
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Gavin Sharp
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Johnathan Nightingale
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Bobby Holley
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

Re: Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-05 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
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

Turning off window.Components for the web

2013-03-04 Thread Bobby Holley
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