Dne středa, 31. července 2013 1:10:34 UTC+2 Gavin Sharp napsal(a):
> I've mentioned this at the engineering meeting, but thought it worth a note
>
> here just to ensure everyone is aware:
>
>
>
> Bug 870100 enabled use of the background thumbnail service in Firefox
>
> desktop, which uses a t
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
>
> Bug 870100 enabled use of the background thumbnail service in Firefox
> desktop, which uses a to do thumbnailing of pages in
> the background.
>
> That means that desktop Firefox now makes use of E10S content processes.
> They have a short l
On 6/08/2013 2:30 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
We also get worse thumbnails than before on pages that are basically
just a big login screen when you aren't actually logged in.
In the short-term, bug 897880 might help with that - it will arrange so
that an error response (roughly, a non 2XX respons
Asa Dotzler schrieb:
We should evaluate, possibly through telemetry or FHR, how many users
are seeing the e10s thumbnails and if that number is high, I think we'll
want to change the criteria for when we go to the e10s thumbnails.
I saw a bug in a recent triage that said we are (or have been)
On 08/03/2013 10:28 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 3/08/2013 5:30 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
On 02/08/2013 16:57, t...@adblockplus.org wrote:
The code in question was explicitly running in Firefox Mobile only.
It used messageManager.loadFrameScript() API to inject code into the
content process of new
On 8/5/2013 9:30 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Justin Lebar schrieb:
It's a lot better than the page
a) playing audio,
b) spinning your cpu, or
a) pwning you.
True.
Still, if this is a problem (there /are/ a lot of websites which are
just one big flash object), I wonder if we could detect it.
Justin Lebar schrieb:
It's a lot better than the page
a) playing audio,
b) spinning your cpu, or
a) pwning you.
True.
Still, if this is a problem (there /are/ a lot of websites which are
just one big flash object), I wonder if we could detect it.
Yes, I worry about those pages that are one
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Bug 870100 enabled use of the background thumbnail service in Firefox
> desktop, which uses a to do thumbnailing of pages in
> the background.
>
> That means that desktop Firefox now makes use of E10S content processes.
> They have a short li
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Mark Hammond schrieb:
>
>> We ask the docShell to not allow plugins or media
>
> So that means that for any page with a video or a big Flash/Java thing on
> it, I would get a completely wrong thumbnail? That's unfortunate.
It's a lot better t
Mark Hammond schrieb:
We ask the docShell to not allow plugins or media
So that means that for any page with a video or a big Flash/Java thing
on it, I would get a completely wrong thumbnail? That's unfortunate.
Robert Kaiser
___
dev-platform mail
On 3/08/2013 5:30 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
On 02/08/2013 16:57, t...@adblockplus.org wrote:
The code in question was explicitly running in Firefox Mobile only.
It used messageManager.loadFrameScript() API to inject code into the
content process of new tabs - I doubt that it will work the same
her
On 8/2/2013 1:52 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
It's certainly worrying given the number of security- and privacy-related
addons people rely on working. Seeing ads in thumbnails is relatively harmless
(if disconcerting), but if someone is relying on an addon for important
security or privacy reasons,
assed their
protections, that's more serious.
-Jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Philip Chee"
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 12:30:29 PM
Subject: Re: reminder: content processes (e10s) are now used by desktop Firefox
On 02/08/2013 16:57, t...@a
On 02/08/2013 16:57, t...@adblockplus.org wrote:
> The code in question was explicitly running in Firefox Mobile only.
> It used messageManager.loadFrameScript() API to inject code into the
> content process of new tabs - I doubt that it will work the same
> here, Adblock Plus would probably need
We are working on ways to make add-ons like adblock work with e10s on
desktop without major changes to the add-on. That mechanism might work
for the thumbnail case. Gavin can reach out to trev and discuss whether
this is something we should try to make work. I do agree this isn't
super high p
On 02/08/2013 03:50, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
breakage with our #1 a
On 02.08.2013 03:35, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> The experiment you're referring to was Adblock running in Firefox with
> remote tabs enabled, I think. I'm not up to date with how that
> experiment was progressing, but I think there are some fundamental
> differences between that scenario and the backgrou
On 08/01/2013 06:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
breakage with our #1
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> Huh? This sentence seems entirely antithetical to our standard
> operating procedure. I.e. backing out known regressions, etc.
What "known regression" are you referring to here? Ads on thumbnails?
That seems like a much less serious p
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
>>
>> Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
>> about issues in general?
>
> This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
>
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
>
> Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
> about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
breakage with our #1 add-on makes me worry in general.
> In general,
The experiment you're referring to was Adblock running in Firefox with
remote tabs enabled, I think. I'm not up to date with how that
experiment was progressing, but I think there are some fundamental
differences between that scenario and the background content processes
being used for the backgrou
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock
> probably
> > doesn't work in the content process.
>
> That seems... less than ideal. I don't think creeping do
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock
> probably
> > doesn't work in the content process.
>
> That seems... less than ideal. I don't think creeping do
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock probably
> doesn't work in the content process.
That seems... less than ideal. I don't think creeping down the e10s
path when all the e10s issues haven't yet been resolved is
seeing them in a tab? I don't appear to see this
> on an old nightly24 snapshot I have lying around.
>
> -Jeff
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gavin Sharp"
> To: "dev-platform"
> Cc: "firefox-dev"
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30,
atform"
Cc: "firefox-dev"
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:10:34 PM
Subject: reminder: content processes (e10s) are now used by desktop Firefox
I've mentioned this at the engineering meeting, but thought it worth a note
here just to ensure everyone is aware:
Bug 870100 enabl
Gavin Sharp schrieb:
This has exposed some e10s crashes that previously weren't exposed on
desktop. I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899758 to
track them - please hang any other such crashes off that bug. If you're
working in a component that has e10s-related crashes, pleas
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> Do we run JS code in these? I can imagine all sorts of things that
> would cause a crash if JS code can invoke random dom apis. I however
> very happy that we are testing in a limited
> fashion with this.
>
> Tom
>
Most of the content-expos
Yes, JS is enabled in the pages loaded by the background thumbnailing
service (with JS disabled the thumbnails would likely not be very
representative in a lot of cases).
Gavin
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> Do we run JS code in these? I can imagine all sorts of things
Do we run JS code in these? I can imagine all sorts of things that
would cause a crash if JS code can invoke random dom apis. I however
very happy that we are testing in a limited
fashion with this.
Tom
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> I've mentioned this at the engineering
I've mentioned this at the engineering meeting, but thought it worth a note
here just to ensure everyone is aware:
Bug 870100 enabled use of the background thumbnail service in Firefox
desktop, which uses a to do thumbnailing of pages in
the background.
That means that desktop Firefox now makes
32 matches
Mail list logo
