Re: Web Speech API Installation Build Flags

2015-05-07 Thread kdavis
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 10:29:29 PM UTC+2, Nicholas Alexander wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:36 PM, kdavis wrote: We would like some feedback on build flags for the Web Speech API installation. More specifically, we are planning to land an initial version of the Web Speech

Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP

2015-05-07 Thread Eric Shepherd (Sheppy)
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Adam Roach aro...@mozilla.com wrote: Which leaves us with a conundrum regarding your plea for more notice: it's a bit hard to seriously consider complaints that at some future date yet to be determined is too soon. ​My apologies. My reading of the

Re: AdBlock Plus as a ServiceWorker?

2015-05-07 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2015-05-07 7:07 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: From what I gather, ServiceWorkers are now The Right Thing To Do if a webpage needs some off main thread pre/post processing on server-sent data. This got me thinking that pre/post processing is exactly what AdBlock Plus is doing. So, I

AdBlock Plus as a ServiceWorker?

2015-05-07 Thread David Rajchenbach-Teller
From what I gather, ServiceWorkers are now The Right Thing To Do if a webpage needs some off main thread pre/post processing on server-sent data. This got me thinking that pre/post processing is exactly what AdBlock Plus is doing. So, I wonder: could AdBlock Plus be reimplemented using a slightly

Re: No more binary components in extensions

2015-05-07 Thread Philip Chee
On 06/05/2015 23:47, Doug Turner wrote: One thing I should point out is that binary components in B2G are NOT user installable. Instead, binaries components are used by companies building FirefoxOS devices. For example, Qualcomm has some special implementation for Geolocation and the radio

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2015-05-07 5:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Ehsan Akhgari writes: This seems similar to the compiler warning situation. Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence the warning. Instead the warning is

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Karl Tomlinson
Ehsan Akhgari writes: On 2015-05-07 5:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Ehsan Akhgari writes: This seems similar to the compiler warning situation. Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence the warning.

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2015-04-29 9:16 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: and this one isn't final, but we could make it final if the tu will be built into libxul (because then devirtualization is fine) http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/nsIDocument.h#1287 I'm not sure why that function is virtual. If

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2015-05-05 2:51 PM, Jeff Walden wrote: Seeing this a touch late, commenting on things not noted yet. On 04/27/2015 12:48 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: I think we should change it to require the usage of exactly one of these keywords per *overridden* function: virtual, override, and final. Here

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2015-04-29 9:17 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Ehsan Akhgari writes: I think there's a typo of some sort in the question, but if you meant every overriding function must be marked with override, then yes, that is the change I'm proposing, but the good news is that you can now run clang-tidy on

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:53:54AM +1200, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Ehsan Akhgari writes: This seems similar to the compiler warning situation. Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence the warning.

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Karl Tomlinson
Ehsan Akhgari writes: This seems similar to the compiler warning situation. Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence the warning. Instead the warning is there to indicate that a programmer needs to

Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used

2015-05-07 Thread Eric Shepherd (Sheppy)
A request from the docs team: once the final decisions are made, please either let us know what those decisions are (use our doc request form: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/form.doc) or update the coding style guide yourselves (

Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP

2015-05-07 Thread Adam Roach
On May 6, 2015, at 22:51, Eric Shepherd esheph...@mozilla.com wrote: would have been nice to have more notice The plan that has been outlined involves a staged approach, with new JavaScript features being withheld after some date, followed by a period during which select older JavaScript

Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP

2015-05-07 Thread Steve Fink
On 05/01/2015 01:50 PM, oli...@omattos.com wrote: When plans like this aren't rolled out across all browsers together, users inevitably come across a broken site and say Firefox works with this site, but Safari gives a warning. Safari must be broken. Better security is punished. Having this