Intent to drop TSF (Text Services Framework) support on WinXP and WinServer 2003

Summary: Drop TSF support only from WinXP and WinServer 2003. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205600 Platforms: Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2 Estimated or target release: Gecko 44 Background: I've already given up to support TSF on WinXP and

Re: easily getting allocation stacks for leaking objects

Good stuff! I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well. I recently experimented with that for a troubled RefCounted class [1], and it was very useful to find which AddRef didn't have its corresponding Release. Cheers, Gerald [1] https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/8dffaf0d2acf

Re: git-bz-moz and Bugzilla 2 factor authentication

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > git bz edit and git bz push don't work, but the rest should, so please file >> issues at https://github.com/mozilla/git-bz-moz or email me if you notice >> them. (Oh, I think setting reviewer flags for Firefox

Re: easily getting allocation stacks for leaking objects

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart wrote: > Good stuff! > > I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well. > > I recently experimented with that for a troubled RefCounted class [1], and > it was very useful to find which AddRef didn't have its

Re: git-bz-moz and Bugzilla 2 factor authentication

On 2015-09-15 5:37 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote: Apparently Bugzilla 2fa breaks the weird cookie authentication method that git-bz-moz and bzexport use. I think I've read that this is a bugzilla bug, but in the meanwhile I've been working on making git-bz-moz use the Bugzilla backend of bexport,

Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

Hello all, ​We are in the process of implementing the global lexical scope per ES6. This changes the semantics of global level 'let' and 'const' bindings from our non-standard semantics to standard semantics. Currently, global 'let' and 'const' bindings ​introduce properties onto the global

Re: mach mozregression command

Yes that's a good point and a perfectly sensible. Thanks for the handy wrapper! On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:37 PM, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Benoit Girard > wrote: > > I just > > hope that we continue to maintain

Re: easily getting allocation stacks for leaking objects

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Andrew McCreight wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart > wrote: > >> Good stuff! >> >> I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well. >> >> I recently experimented with that for

About 's future...

Hi all As previously raised on this list, there's a open wardiscussion about removing [1] Some people, like Sir Tim Berners-Lee doesn't seem to agree with that, hence another thread is taking place at [2] For Google, it seems the decision has been made, nothing is going to change, and could

Re: About 's future...

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Rob Stradling wrote: > The existence of this bug... > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191414 > "gather telemetry on usage of " > > ...would seem to suggest that Mozilla "haven't decided anything yet". > IMHO that's not a

Re: easily getting allocation stacks for leaking objects

Note that for JS objects (and JS strings very soon), you can track allocation stacks with the Debugger API: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger-API/Debugger.Memory On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at

Re: easily getting allocation stacks for leaking objects

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:55:27 AM UTC+10, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Andrew McCreight > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart > > wrote: > > > >> Good stuff! > >> > >> I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as

Re: Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

On 9/17/15 8:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote: ​The first call to f() does not throw. It actually does, because the bareword lookup for "x" fails. You get "ReferenceError: x is not defined". If you replaced "x" with "window.x" or "self.x" or "this.x" or something I think you'd get the behavior you

Intent to ship: Canvas CaptureStream

Targeting Firefox 43, I intend to turn Canvas CaptureStream on by default for all platforms. It has been developed behind the `canvas.capturestream.enabled` preference, and landed behind that pref in Firefox 41. Other UAs intending to ship it are at least Chromium/Blink, who have started work in

Is Services.scriptloader.loadSubScript safe?

Does anyone know, if an extension injects a script into a content page using Services.scriptloader.loadSubScript, is there any danger of leaking something with chrome privileges to the page? Here's a short example of how I'm hoping to use loadSubScript:

Re: Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

Shu-yu Guo wrote: 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!): function f() { dump(x); } f(); // prints undefined​ ​ ​let x = 42; f(); // prints 42 Would you mind clarifying what this is supposed to demonstrate? It looks to me that this is demonstrating TDZ

Re: Is Services.scriptloader.loadSubScript safe?

If you want your subscript to work reliably, you should run it in a sandbox with an Expanded Principal [1] whose sandboxPrototype points to the content window object. Otherwise, your code will be subject to breakage by pages that muck with global state. If you don't care about that, you might as

Re: Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote: > Shu-yu Guo wrote: > > 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!): >> >> >> function f() { dump(x); } >> f(); // prints undefined​ >> ​ >> >> >> ​let x = 42; >> f(); // prints 42 >> >> >> Would

Re: Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

(Isn't that bananas, by the way?) On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote: > >> Shu-yu Guo wrote: >> >> 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope >>> (lol!): >>> >>> >>>

API request: MutationObserver with querySelector

Hi, One of the major use cases for MutationObserver is all kinds of libraries that either shim APIs or provide intrinsic modifications to DOM experience. Examples of such libraries may be: * A library that provides Date/Time pickers only caring about * A library that extends behavior of a