Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 16:03, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Is it possible for us to get a list of the non-standard APIs that are being used, sorted by usage? I'd like to say work is being prioritized based on need :) Yes, here's a snapshot of permissions used: http://people.mozilla.org/~bfrancis/images/permissions-2015-01-30.png Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. The proportion of apps in the Marketplace which actually need to be privileged is surprisingly small. Service Workers should hopefully make it smaller. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
[b2g] How to get results from api-dev.bugzilla.mozilla.org using Xpath?
Hi, Sorry. It may be a bad place to ask such question. But, I only know this mailing group when working on Mozilla stuff. I am thinking to use XPath to get query results from api-dev.bugzilla.mozilla.org. For example, with https://api-dev.bugzilla.mozilla.org/latest/count?product=Bugzillapriority=P1severity=blocker, I should get: htmltitleBugzilla::API/titlebodypre--- data: 162/pre/body/html But, apparently, it looks like I can't get 162 with XPath query. Did I misunderstand anything? Anyone knows how to get the data via XPath query? Thanks. Cache Heigl ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
I found that a number of applications cannot be written without XHR, starting with anything that looks like a feed reader, or anything that needs to scrap a third-party website. We need a solution for this. Cheers, David On 30/01/15 17:53, Benjamin Francis wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 16:03, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com mailto:overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Is it possible for us to get a list of the non-standard APIs that are being used, sorted by usage? I'd like to say work is being prioritized based on need :) Yes, here's a snapshot of permissions used: http://people.mozilla.org/~bfrancis/images/permissions-2015-01-30.png http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ebfrancis/images/permissions-2015-01-30.png Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. The proportion of apps in the Marketplace which actually need to be privileged is surprisingly small. Service Workers should hopefully make it smaller. ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia -- David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD Performance Team, Mozilla signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
I dont think its necessarily about removing packaged apps completely, they do have their advantages and building out the ability for web application run in a peer to peer fashion is a good thing to do. However I think Naoki's questions illustrate the point really well An example is emergency calling. If the dialer was fully hosted without a wifi connection, how do you make a call? Web applications can and should be able to work fully offline and be able to perform just as well as packaged application, we currently arent doing a lot to make the offline web a better place since we pretty much gave up and used packaged apps, I do hope service workers improves the situation. At every point we are building functionality where people need to do custom firefox packaging for it to be used, we should look at figuring out how we will make it available to web content On 30 January 2015 at 18:54, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: I have to agree with Kevin. My biggest concerns are for performance, offline cases, and issues with caching with full hosted apps. An example is emergency calling. If the dialer was fully hosted without a wifi connection, how do you make a call? This scenario would require you to have a SIM w/ a data plan in order to access the app that is needed just to go through the ril when it should just be able to access the ril directly without having to have a SIM. Even having partial packaged apps could help in this case. Regards, Naoki On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: Do we really want to fully deprecate packaged apps? I think making hosted apps and packaged apps equals is a big win, but I'm not sure if fully deprecating packaged apps is a good idea. There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. Best, Kevin On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 18:17, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. Can you elaborate on this a bit? Why do developers need to use systemXHR with their packaged app? How do you envision Service Workers helping in this case? As I understand it... Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. If they instead used Service Workers to make their app work offline, they wouldn't have a weird synthetic origin and therefore wouldn't need to use systemXHR because their app would be same-origin with their web server. ___ dev-webapps mailing list dev-weba...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. For Service Workers this also means an https:// server with a valid cert. Hopefully Let's Encrypt makes this easy for everyone, but I think right now it would be a barrier. That being said, I would still like to see us get away from our non-standard packaged apps. Ben ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 01/30/2015 11:41 AM, Benjamin Kelly wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com mailto:kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. For Service Workers this also means an https:// server with a valid cert. Hopefully Let's Encrypt makes this easy for everyone, but I think right now it would be a barrier. Anyone hosting on github gets that also. I think the barrier to entry is pretty low. Fabrice -- Fabrice Desré b2g team Mozilla Corporation ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery
Hi Jan,
I noticed something odd : http://git.mozilla.org/?p=releases/gecko.git;a=summary
that gecko is 2 days behind.
also :
http://git.mozilla.org/?p=b2g/platform_bootable_recovery.git;a=summary
The reason why you might be getting the error is that I can't find :
26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
as a hash code pull.
My guess is that something happened where git.mozilla.org isn't synching quite
right right now?
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:30:12 PM UTC+1, Naoki Hirata wrote:
How long ago did you build? When's the last time you pulled?
We have a build that was created last night so if this is an issue, it most
likely occurred sometime today.
Regards,
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list
('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad
object 26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
Anyone encountered this as well?
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
This is mozilla-b2g/b2g master. Against latest mc.
Against non-custom Gecko same issue.
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Dietrich Ayala auton...@gmail.com wrote: What about dodgy network performance? A website-in-a-zip will be a single network request, which might perform far better under some network conditions than many network requests. You can implement this in Service Workers. Intercept the fetch events for individual resources, make a single fetch() for an archive blob, split it up in the SW, stick the resources in the Cache individually. Then subsequent fetch events find the individual resources in the Cache. (Similar to the Hacks post I'm working on.) Ben ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
[b2g] Weekly Quality Report: v3.0 branch status - Jan 30, 2015
Following is v3.0 branch status from Jan 24, 2015 through Jan 30, 2015: 3.0 Severe Issues (Current status = New, Reopened or Assigned): * Total: 9 http://mzl.la/1DL7RHd * Blockers: 1 http://mzl.la/1KR7eh5 (1 regression http://mzl.la/1ysYmI9) * Nominations: 8 http://mzl.la/156gGgw (6 regressions http://mzlla/1DL8uAx) 3.0 areas of concern: * Contacts: 18 http://mzl.la/1BA0212 * Dialer: 9 http://mzl.la/1vg2eOS * SMS: 10 http://mzl.la/1zf73ro * System:Window Management: 7 http://mzl.la/1JVAthw Smoke test results * The pass rate of last 5 smoke test runs is 42/43, 61/68, 40/43, 41/43, and 43/43 Gaia UI test results * The pass rate of last 5 automation test runs is 177/181, 169/181, 166/181, 166/180, and 170/180 Inline image 1 Inline image 2 Regards, FirefoxOS QA Team ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: An example is emergency calling. If the dialer was fully hosted without a wifi connection, how do you make a call? This scenario would require you to have a SIM w/ a data plan in order to access the app that is needed just to go through the ril when it should just be able to access the ril directly without having to have a SIM. I would think we'd always want something required for certification to be packaged or built-in or something. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
The proposal is that the act of installing the app fetches all indicated resources and persists them. Apps that today are packaged wouldn't need to touch the network at all except for optional, periodic update pings. You could also preload apps like the dialer and other core/certified apps - so they are functional from the first run with no need to ever see a network. Nonetheless they are tied to an origin and could be updated using similar mechanims to any page with a serviceworker. I know this presents difficulties today. I would like to understand them better as I think this stuff is *really* important. If an app doesnt have a meaningful URL its not really a web app in any real sense IMO. /Sam On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: I have to agree with Kevin. My biggest concerns are for performance, offline cases, and issues with caching with full hosted apps. An example is emergency calling. If the dialer was fully hosted without a wifi connection, how do you make a call? This scenario would require you to have a SIM w/ a data plan in order to access the app that is needed just to go through the ril when it should just be able to access the ril directly without having to have a SIM. Even having partial packaged apps could help in this case. Regards, Naoki On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: Do we really want to fully deprecate packaged apps? I think making hosted apps and packaged apps equals is a big win, but I'm not sure if fully deprecating packaged apps is a good idea. There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. Best, Kevin On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 18:17, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. Can you elaborate on this a bit? Why do developers need to use systemXHR with their packaged app? How do you envision Service Workers helping in this case? As I understand it... Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. If they instead used Service Workers to make their app work offline, they wouldn't have a weird synthetic origin and therefore wouldn't need to use systemXHR because their app would be same-origin with their web server. ___ dev-webapps mailing list dev-weba...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
Do we really want to fully deprecate packaged apps? I think making hosted apps and packaged apps equals is a big win, but I'm not sure if fully deprecating packaged apps is a good idea. There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. Best, Kevin On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 18:17, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. Can you elaborate on this a bit? Why do developers need to use systemXHR with their packaged app? How do you envision Service Workers helping in this case? As I understand it... Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. If they instead used Service Workers to make their app work offline, they wouldn't have a weird synthetic origin and therefore wouldn't need to use systemXHR because their app would be same-origin with their web server. ___ dev-webapps mailing list dev-weba...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 18:54, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: I have to agree with Kevin. My biggest concerns are for performance, offline cases, and issues with caching with full hosted apps. As Dale says this is exactly why we need Service Workers. I'm not suggesting that all apps should require an Internet connection all the time, that would never work :) Currently people are creating packaged apps so that their apps work offline. But I would argue that packaged apps miss out on most of the benefits of the web. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
I'm late to this party. The discussion at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.webapi/PicfHG9Figk covers a lot of what I had in mind. bfrancis++ /Sam On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Samuel Foster sfos...@mozilla.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote: I dont think its necessarily about removing packaged apps completely, they do have their advantages and building out the ability for web application run in a peer to peer fashion is a good thing to do. There's a thing in here about conflating transport with delivery format and origin which I'm struggling a bit with. ISTM that we should be able to request resources with whatever mechanism and protocol is available and still have meaningful URIs for those resources. If that's P2P or just sideloading apps or updates from a zip or sdcard it would be nice to be able keep an association with the origin with those resources (and the trust that implies) /Sam ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
Interesting point in case for service workers. I think I'm ignorant about the technology and being in QA, I tend to play the devil's advocate. Don't get me wrong, I do wish for what you're stating. I am concerned about throwing things over the wall to service workers; I get the feeling we'll still run into challenges to confront offline cases. An edge case example of what I'm worried about is: Camping and being in the middle of no where, and then the phone dies. You're able to charge the device via Pan Charger ( http://www.slashgear.com/pan-charger-boils-your-iphone-battery-back-to-life-21160661/ ) or some similar device. Will the service worker still be able to launch the dialer for emergency calls without having a net connection? I guess my assumption here is that the service worker relies on information in cache and being active. What happens when that gets disrupted? I'm trying to read up on it a little here : http://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers/ Regards, Naoki On Jan 30, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 18:54, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: I have to agree with Kevin. My biggest concerns are for performance, offline cases, and issues with caching with full hosted apps. As Dale says this is exactly why we need Service Workers. I'm not suggesting that all apps should require an Internet connection all the time, that would never work :) Currently people are creating packaged apps so that their apps work offline. But I would argue that packaged apps miss out on most of the benefits of the web. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 19:24, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote: An edge case example of what I'm worried about is: Camping and being in the middle of no where, and then the phone dies. You're able to charge the device via Pan Charger ( http://www.slashgear.com/pan-charger-boils-your-iphone-battery-back-to-life-21160661/ ) or some similar device. Will the service worker still be able to launch the dialer for emergency calls without having a net connection? Yes. A Service Worker acts like a local proxy and can intercept network requests and respond to them without going to the network. It could work just as well offline as a packaged app. I guess my assumption here is that the service worker relies on information in cache and being active. What happens when that gets disrupted? I'm trying to read up on it a little here : http://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers/ The spec doesn't make for light reading material! This https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/blob/master/explainer.md https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1036275 or this http://jakearchibald.com/2014/service-worker-first-draft/ might be a better introduction. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1036275 ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 20:10, Dietrich Ayala auton...@gmail.com wrote: What about dodgy network performance? A website-in-a-zip will be a single network request, which might perform far better under some network conditions than many network requests. I'm not sure whether that's actually true, but one solution would be to be able to populate a Service Worker cache from a hosted packaged version of a collection of resources which you can get with one request. Populating a cache from a package was one of the proposed use cases of the W3C TAG's hosted package proposal [1]. People weren't that excited about the idea because HTTP/2 is supposed to solve the problem of multiple network requests. One day. Of course once the Service Worker cache is populated, it shouldn't be effected by a dodgy network, that's one of the main problems it's designed to overcome. 1. http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/ ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
[b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery
error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list
('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad object
26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
Anyone encountered this as well?
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 18:17, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. Can you elaborate on this a bit? Why do developers need to use systemXHR with their packaged app? How do you envision Service Workers helping in this case? As I understand it... Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. If they instead used Service Workers to make their app work offline, they wouldn't have a weird synthetic origin and therefore wouldn't need to use systemXHR because their app would be same-origin with their web server. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 19:10, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: I would think we'd always want something required for certification to be packaged or built-in or something. I should mention that I'm not sure we'll ever be able to make the system app a hosted app. It has really become part of the platform and is arguably a new type of chrome. It would be nice to be proved wrong, but I'd be OK with the system app being local to the device if all the other apps were hosted and part of the web. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery
Well, Kats pointed me to the reason why gecko isn't synched :
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.b2g/KjnxKND2b3I/8WQEaTFSQCwJ
Not sure about your issue quite yet.
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Naoki Hirata nhir...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi Jan,
I noticed something odd :
http://git.mozilla.org/?p=releases/gecko.git;a=summary
that gecko is 2 days behind.
also :
http://git.mozilla.org/?p=b2g/platform_bootable_recovery.git;a=summary
The reason why you might be getting the error is that I can't find :
26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
as a hash code pull.
My guess is that something happened where git.mozilla.org isn't synching
quite right right now?
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:30:12 PM UTC+1, Naoki Hirata wrote:
How long ago did you build? When's the last time you pulled?
We have a build that was created last night so if this is an issue, it most
likely occurred sometime today.
Regards,
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list
('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad
object 26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
Anyone encountered this as well?
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
This is mozilla-b2g/b2g master. Against latest mc.
Against non-custom Gecko same issue.
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. The synthetic origin is due to the app:// URL scheme? ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
I have to agree with Kevin. My biggest concerns are for performance, offline cases, and issues with caching with full hosted apps. An example is emergency calling. If the dialer was fully hosted without a wifi connection, how do you make a call? This scenario would require you to have a SIM w/ a data plan in order to access the app that is needed just to go through the ril when it should just be able to access the ril directly without having to have a SIM. Even having partial packaged apps could help in this case. Regards, Naoki On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: Do we really want to fully deprecate packaged apps? I think making hosted apps and packaged apps equals is a big win, but I'm not sure if fully deprecating packaged apps is a good idea. There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. Best, Kevin On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 30 January 2015 at 18:17, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: Most of the frequently used permissions do not require the use of a packaged app, but the second most used permission is systemXHR which does. Apparently most developers are only using this because they created a packaged app purely for its offline properties, then found they needed systemXHR to talk to their own server. Which is silly. I hope Service Workers will help with this situation. Can you elaborate on this a bit? Why do developers need to use systemXHR with their packaged app? How do you envision Service Workers helping in this case? As I understand it... Developers create a packaged app because it's currently the most effective way to make their app work offline. A packaged app has a synthetic origin which will always be cross-origin from the developer's own web server. They use SystemXHR to allow their packaged app to use remote resources from their web server, rather than set up CORS because that's more difficult. If they instead used Service Workers to make their app work offline, they wouldn't have a weird synthetic origin and therefore wouldn't need to use systemXHR because their app would be same-origin with their web server. ___ dev-webapps mailing list dev-weba...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps ___ dev-gaia mailing list dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 20:22, Dietrich Ayala auton...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds almost as simple as zipping some files up! ;) That's a fair point, but at least you only have to do it once, rather than re-package your app in 12 different proprietary package formats :) ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: There have been several proposals of how to provide privileged hosted apps, including work around hosted packages [3] and discussions around a security model. Link [3] (bug 1036275) seems mostly about how to reference resources inside a zip file. It also seems to imply that the packaged app could be hosted anywhere, not via a marketplace? I would be interested to know how validation of the privileged app is done (this thing I agreed to access these APIs is still the same vetted thing). If there is some sort of signature checking going on, it would be great to see that extended to certified apps, where we allow certain signed apps access to the certified APIs. This sort of model would allow gaia apps to go hosted. They also likely need a way to make sure they can provide certain app bundles for certain gecko versions. Without those things, it is hard to see the gaia apps going to this model. We will continue to get new APIs that we will be expected to use behind a certified flag. The latest is the navigator.sync API. That API is a great one to have for battery concerns, but needs service workers to be fully realized, is still new, so it is a certified API. For users getting 2.2 though, ideally our apps would use the API in the effort to extend battery life. I would like to see gaia apps go to a hosted model (even just marketplace hosting), since it gives us a dogfood way to test how we expect other apps to be made. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery
How long ago did you build? When's the last time you pulled?
We have a build that was created last night so if this is an issue, it most
likely occurred sometime today.
Regards,
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list
('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad
object 26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
Anyone encountered this as well?
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote: I dont think its necessarily about removing packaged apps completely, they do have their advantages and building out the ability for web application run in a peer to peer fashion is a good thing to do. There's a thing in here about conflating transport with delivery format and origin which I'm struggling a bit with. ISTM that we should be able to request resources with whatever mechanism and protocol is available and still have meaningful URIs for those resources. If that's P2P or just sideloading apps or updates from a zip or sdcard it would be nice to be able keep an association with the origin with those resources (and the trust that implies) /Sam ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 19:10, Andrew Overholt overh...@mozilla.com wrote: I would think we'd always want something required for certification to be packaged or built-in or something. Before Gaia apps were packaged apps we used to pre-populate an appcache when generating a profile to flash to the device. We could do the same thing with a Service Worker cache, maybe even sign the cache [1]. Or we could use a package, but use a pre-cached copy of a signed hosted package [2] which has a real URL and can be updated without updating the whole OS. 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.webapi/PicfHG9Figk 2. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1036275 ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
What about dodgy network performance? A website-in-a-zip will be a single network request, which might perform far better under some network conditions than many network requests. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: Hi, It feels like a good time to bring up this topic again. One of the main themes in suggestions for Firefox OS 3.0 has been to make the OS more webby, moving away from packaged apps to something inherently more web-like, and even turning the built-in Gaia apps into hosted apps. When we last spoke in this thread, the W3C Manifest for Web Application specification [1] was at its first public working draft. That spec has recently reached an important milestone by being declared feature complete and is expected to transition to a Candidate Recommendation soon, already having being implemented in Chrome. Service Workers seem to be moving along in Gecko [2], and have also been one of the hot topics in Firefox OS 3.0 discussions, particularly in relation to offline functionality. There have been several proposals of how to provide privileged hosted apps, including work around hosted packages [3] and discussions around a security model. There have been several prototypes demonstrated with hosted versions of Gaia apps doing all sorts of interesting things, and proposed design concepts around new ways of thinking about web apps, like Pinned Apps [4]. There are lots of separate teams working on things in this area so I thought it might be useful to share what everyone is working on. How close are we to being able to deprecate packaged apps? How are hosted privileged apps coming along? What's the latest thinking on a security model? How are Service Workers coming along? Where is the source code of some of the prototypes people have been working on for hosted Gaia apps? What is still missing? Please share! Ben 1. http://w3c.github.io/manifest/ 2. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903441 3. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1036275 4. https://wiki.mozilla.org/FirefoxOS/Pinned_Apps On 8 July 2013 at 22:31, Ben Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: Sorry for the typo in the subject line. It wasn't an attempt at a clever pun... Hello all, Apologies for the length of this email, I didn't have time to write a shorter one. A year ago Jonas sent out an email [1] outlining the requirements for a new breed of trusted web apps. He explained some of the challenges of fulfilling these requirements with hosted apps and set out the rationale for starting with a packaged app solution, with a view to exploring something more webby later. Now that we have shipped v1 of Firefox OS [2] with a packaged solution for trusted apps I would like to re-open this discussion and get your feedback on whether and how we might make trusted apps more web-like. In order to gain access to many of the new APIs we have created in Firefox OS, web content creators must change their entire distribution model and package the assets of their app into a zip file to be signed and served from one or more app stores. These assets do not have their own URIs on the Internet and are served over a local app:// protocol instead of HTTP. This is similar to how native apps on other mobile platforms work, and is also similar to the packaged apps used in Chrome Chrome OS, as well as W3C widgets. However, it isn't much like how the web works. There is no one definitive version of the app at a single URI and the update process is very different. The System Applications Working Group [3] at the W3C have actually started some early drafts of specifications to standardise an app manifest/package format and the app:// URI scheme, based largely on the work done by Mozilla. Meanwhile at Google I/O, Google showed a version of the Chrome Web Store [4] where hosted apps are re-branded simply as web sites, with the term app being limited to packaged apps using their own .crx packaging format. I have also heard suggestions that support for hosted apps may at some point be deprecated in Chrome altogether, in favour of supporting only packaged apps. The message coming from both Mozilla and Google right now is that all trusted apps must be packaged, hosted web apps can simply not be trusted with access to new privileged APIs. What's sad about this vision of the future is that many of the most interesting apps that get written using web technologies like HTML, CSS and JavaScript will not actually be part of the web. As Tim Berners-Lee recently put it in an interview with the BBC about native apps [5], when apps and their content don't have a URI on the Internet they are not part of the discourse of the web and are therefore non-web. This was a topic discussed at the Meet the TAG event hosted by Mozilla in London recently, with members of the W3C's Technical Architecture Group expressing disappointment in this
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:31 AM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: There have been several proposals of how to provide privileged hosted apps, including work around hosted packages [3] and discussions around a security model. [...] I would like to see gaia apps go to a hosted model (even just marketplace hosting), since it gives us a dogfood way to test how we expect other apps to be made. I'm particularly interested in this piece as well. If we can prototype a pattern for Serviceworkers-backed, self-updating, offline-capable web apps (snappy name I know, rolls right off the tongue), then I'd be happy to put engineering resources behind the developer ergonomics of this. (In fact, I'm working on a plan for exactly that). These kinds of apps have the appeal that they can work anywhere™ based on standards (essentially, wherever SWs already are, or wherever we can make them work). That's not to say we don't have a good reason for certified packaged apps right now. The security model really is the pivot point here. With verifiable (signed), hosted updates, you seem to be on to something. ~F ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:30:12 PM UTC+1, Naoki Hirata wrote:
How long ago did you build? When's the last time you pulled?
We have a build that was created last night so if this is an issue, it most
likely occurred sometime today.
Regards,
Naoki
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Jan Jongboom janjongb...@gmail.com wrote:
error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list
('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad
object 26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5
Anyone encountered this as well?
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
This is mozilla-b2g/b2g master. Against latest mc.
Against non-custom Gecko same issue.
___
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On 30 January 2015 at 18:40, Kevin Grandon kgran...@mozilla.com wrote: Do we really want to fully deprecate packaged apps? I think making hosted apps and packaged apps equals is a big win, but I'm not sure if fully deprecating packaged apps is a good idea. Packaged apps are not web apps. They don't have a URL so are not linkable, crawlable, indexable, searchable or discoverable like the rest of the web and they are always proprietary to one OS. We tried to standardise packaged apps, and it didn't work out. Packaged apps were always intended as a temporary solution, but we never figured out the security model to allow us to get rid of them. There are many developers who like the ability to not run and maintain a server. It's simply less work and overhead for them to throw their code up on a marketplace, and not have to worry about a monthly server cost, or a server going down. If that really is a problem then Mozilla should offer web app hosting, which is what we are essentially doing, but we're using packaged apps which force a centralised app store model. We can never possibly compete using that model because it relies on app developers submitting their apps to our app store. We have the same chicken and egg bootstrapping problem as every other proprietary OS. The only way the web can win is if the web itself is the one source of truth, all web apps have a URL, they use a standard cross-platform manifest format and anyone can create their own curated collection of those apps. If someone creates a web app with a W3C web app manifest so that it can be installed on Android via Google Chrome, then it is automatically useful on Firefox OS too. And every OS which supports the web. Having all web apps be hosted and cross-platform means that rather than trying to convince app developers to submit their proprietary Firefox apps to our empty Firefox OS app store, we just crawl the web looking for web manifests of apps people already created for the web. To save me ranting further in this thread, you can read more about my take on this here :) https://slack-files.com/T033ZPYCR-F03BRU38Z-1ce3da2e74 ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
[b2g] Partial restoration: gecko-dev and Git replication will be broken for a little while
tl;dr: branches for all b2g version up through 2.2 for partner facing gecko.git have been re-enabled; work continues on developer gecko-dev.git development branches. This translates to all b2g gecko development efforts up through version. Work continues to re-enable both: a) those branches in the gecko-dev.git repo used by both b2g FF developers b) the newer mozilla-central and inbound branches, including gecko-projects.git Note: only the gecko conversion from hg - git has been affected. All other conversion (l10n, gaia, other) continue to operating correctly. More details in https://bugzil.la/927219#c45 On 2015-01-29 07:12 , Hal Wine wrote: FYI, recent commits to gecko on hg.mozilla.org will be delayed in arriving at github.com:mozilla/gecko-dev.git This likely includes anything landed after approximate 2000PT Wednesday. Forwarded Message Subject: gecko-dev and Git replication will be broken for a little while Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 01:06:30 -0800 From: Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com To: dev-version-cont...@lists.mozilla.org, dev-platform dev-platf...@lists.mozilla.org Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform Git replication is currently broken due to a mistake of mine when mass closing branches earlier today. Don't expect restoration before 1200 PDT. Bug 927219. ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: How are Service Workers coming along? We have a Q1 goal to pref Service Workers on in mozilla-central. If we're successful with this goal I believe that would put SWs in gecko 39. A lot of code is in review right now, but we still have some more work to do after that. There is also at least one thorny bug we need to solve in order to fully support b2g: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125961 Hope that helps. Ben ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Measuring CPU usage during app start up on quad-core devices
On 30/01/2015 00:59, David Flanagan wrote: I've recently been investigating some app startup time issues on quad-core devices (like the nexus 5) and needed a way to find out how good the Gallery app is at using all the available cores when it starts up. I ended up writing a python script that uses adb to read /proc/stat from the connected device, then wait 5 seconds, then read it again. By subtracting the first set of numbers from the second set, I can figure out how busy or idle each core was during the 5 second wait. If you want more detailed information on which task run on which core you might want to try the kernel ftrace facility which is available on the Flame. You can start it with the following commands (on the device): echo 1 /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_stat_runtime/enable echo 1 /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/tracing_enabled Then wait as much as you need and turn it off again: echo 0 /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_stat_runtime/enable echo 0 /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/tracing_enabled Now you can dump the trace with: cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace You'll get a printout more or less like this: # tracer: nop # # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 27588/31644 #P:1 # # _-= irqs-off # / _= need-resched #| / _---= hardirq/softirq #|| / _--= preempt-depth #||| / delay # TASK-PID CPU# TIMESTAMP FUNCTION # | | | | | b2g-4841 [000] d.h3 5811.437103: sched_stat_runtime: comm=b2g pid=4841 runtime=2058229 [ns] vruntime=1410486014383 [ns] Timer-4867 [000] d..3 5811.437369: sched_stat_runtime: comm=Timer pid=4867 runtime=275521 [ns] vruntime=1410481289904 [ns] b2g-4841 [000] d.h2 5811.438856: sched_stat_runtime: comm=b2g pid=4841 runtime=1482604 [ns] vruntime=1410487496987 [ns] b2g-4841 [000] d..5 5811.443808: sched_stat_runtime: comm=b2g pid=4841 runtime=4953854 [ns] vruntime=1410492450841 [ns] Gecko_IOThread-4853 [000] d..4 5811.444165: sched_stat_runtime: comm=Gecko_IOThread pid=4853 runtime=357760 [ns] vruntime=1410481761944 [ns] ... Every line will contain the runtime of a single thread complete with the process name it belongs to (or the thread name if it has one), it's PID, the CPU on which it run (the column between square brackets) as well as how long it executed in ns (the runtime parameter). It should be relatively easy to aggregate this data on a per-B2G application basis and display how much CPU time an app consumed on every core. Clearing the trace is just a matter of running: echo /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace Vivien had started hacking on a script for this in bug 1061969 [1], you might want to have a look there if you feel this might be useful. Gabriele [1] [Camera] Pulling down the status bar while in the camera app is very sluggish https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1061969 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
Re: [b2g] Visibility plan for document.registerElement (custom elements)
There are discussions going on at the platform/spec level that could change how custom elements are registered and more so change how they are upgraded/created under the hood: - Firstly there is a push to make custom elements more 'classy' utilising ES6 classes for definition with possibly real constructors instead of `createdCallback`. - Secondly Symbols may be used to define the life-cycle (created, attached, etc) callback properties to help avoid naming collisions. Until all vendors have come to agreement and Gecko is relatively sure the public API of our custom-element implementation won't change, I'm assuming `document.registerElement()` won't be turned on. W. *W I L S O N P A G E* Front-end Developer Firefox OS (Gaia) London Office Twitter: @wilsonpage IRC: wilsonpage On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Guillaume Marty gma...@mozilla.com wrote: Maybe we could enable web components on hosted and privileged apps via a permission in the meantime. On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:12 PM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Soledad Penadés spena...@mozilla.com wrote: Can you use a polyfill in the meantime? There is a polyfill for enabling only the custom element registration part http://webcomponents.org/polyfills/custom-elements/ I would prefer to not add that layer if possible. Our custom element use so far is light (just custom-named divs with extra properties attached) and we have had a way to modularize our UI, so not a deal-breaker if we cannot use custom elements. I also want to target serializing the HTML for some cards used as in entry points served by service workers, for fast startup. This will mean if using custom elements, constructing them in very idiomatic ways, so being able to reuse today's off the shelf components would not be one of the main drivers for the custom elements. --- Separately, I was informed off-list that perhaps dev-platform is a better place to post this question, so I did so there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/zdYYVi-ayIU It might be best to continue further discussion on that list. Apologies for the initial fuzzy list targeting. Off-list I was also pointed to https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/CustomElements that might have some useful background information. James ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g -- Guillaume Marty @g_marty http://gu.illau.me ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
