Re: Fido U2F, two-factor authentication support

2015-11-20 Thread Gervase Markham
On 18/11/15 19:26, phow...@ccvschools.com wrote: > This is definitely an important feature, but I'm not holding my > breath. I have had a lot of experience with Mozilla over the years > and I really doubt anything will materialize in the near future. Feeling particularly entitled today, are we?

Re: Is that possible to implement Sqlite.jsm with ctypes so that is can works in the worker?

2015-11-20 Thread David Rajchenbach-Teller
It could be improved a bit, but the real issue is that JavaScript is a high-level, garbage-collected, dynamic programming language, while C is a low-level, memory-unsafe, type-unsafe, statically compiled programming language. I have heard a few ideas floating around on how this could be improved,

Re: Intent to Implement: HTML and tags

2015-11-20 Thread Cameron McCormack
Ting-Yu Lin: > Summary: The is used as a disclosure widget from which the user > can > obtain additional information or controls. is used as a summary or > legend of the details. To expand the details, the user could click on the > summary or by adding a bool attribute 'open' to the details. >

Re: Is that possible to implement Sqlite.jsm with ctypes so that is can works in the worker?

2015-11-20 Thread Philip Chee
On 18/11/2015 16:04, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > Well, the main problem is that js-ctypes is very hard to use, even > harder to use without causing memory leaks or crashing the process. > Think the worst parts of both C and JavaScript together. Are these problems inherent in ctypes or is it

Re: FYI: updating yasm on build machines

2015-11-20 Thread Neil
Chris Peterson wrote: mozilla-build tools already use 1.3 When did it get upgraded? (My mozilla-build only has yasm 1.1) -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Faster Windows builds on Try

2015-11-20 Thread Aaron Klotz
<3<3<3 On 11/19/2015 3:23 PM, Chris AtLee wrote: Over the past months we've been working on migrating our Windows builds from the legacy hardware machines into Amazon. I'm very happy to announce that we've wrapped up the initial work here, and all our Windows builds on Try are now happening in

Fwd: [Planned] Tree Closing Window 2015-11-21 0600-1630 PST 2015-11-21 06:00 PST 330 mins

2015-11-20 Thread Hal Wine
FYI: Trees will be closed during our normal Tree Closing Window. However, some of the work mentioned below has been deferred, so trees should be reopened by 11:30 PT. -- Forwarded message -- From: Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:54 AM Subject: [Planned] TCW

Re: FYI: updating yasm on build machines

2015-11-20 Thread Chris Peterson
On 11/20/15 5:09 AM, Neil wrote: Chris Peterson wrote: mozilla-build tools already use 1.3 When did it get upgraded? (My mozilla-build only has yasm 1.1) Last year according to bug 1113450: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1113450

Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Ben Kelly
In Firefox 44 we intend to enable Service Workers and FetchEvents by default on desktop and android. These features will not be enabled on Firefox OS yet. They has been developed behind the following preferences: dom.serviceWorkers.enabled dom.serviceWorkers.interception.enabled

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/20/15 3:21 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing. The core functionality has been stable for a while, though. OK. I guess my question is whether, for example, waiting for another release cycle would significantly improve things here

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Ben Kelly
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Another compat issue we need to fix is returning the same >> ServiceWorkerRegistration object repeatedly from certain APIs. This was >> something that changed a few times in both the spec and chrome. >> >> Fixing these

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/20/15 3:42 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: No. I think what we have works on the sites/demos/wpt tests available today. We feel its compatible enough to ship. We'll fix further compat issues using our standard train model. OK. I think the best thing we can do right now is get a second

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Brian Grinstead
Also, webconsole logging for Service Workers is preffed behind devtools.webconsole.filter.serviceworkers, which will be enabled by default in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201962. Brian > On Nov 20, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > > In Firefox 44 we

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/20/15 1:34 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: Please let me know if you have any questions are concerns. I actually have a few questions. 1) How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct? 2) How confident are we that our implementation, Chrome's, and the spec all match? I know we were

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Ben Kelly
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> >> 1) How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct? >> > > The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing. The >

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/20/15 3:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: I guess I should mention the biggest change in the spec that has not been implemented by either chrome or firefox. The spec now exposes the Response.url passed to the FetchEvent.respondWith() to the outer network request. So base URLs for stylesheets and

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Ben Kelly
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > 1) How confident are we that the spec is stable/correct? > The spec is converging to a stable v1, but things are still changing. The core functionality has been stable for a while, though. > 2) How confident are we

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Performance.translateTime

2015-11-20 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Though Service Workers do actually have a 'client' object which >> represent window objects. So we could enable passing those as global >> to the translate function. > > That's a good idea. Want to raise it with the

Re: Intent to ship: Service Workers with FetchEvent

2015-11-20 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > I think the best thing we can do right now is get a second implementation > into wide circulation. This will highlight compat issues yes, but also > help avoid baking chrome specific behavior into all the sites using