Antoine Junod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> timeless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Aug 20, 10:22 am, Antoine Junod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > I'd also encourage you to treat "call" as a reserved word. It's way
> > too confusing having a function named "call" which is not the EC
On Aug 28, 6:23 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 6:07 pm, mhammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The XPCOM objects exposed
> > by Python can be made a GCObject - but I'm not sure how we would
> > integrate the rest of the Python universe - eg, assuming we have an
>
On Aug 28, 6:07 pm, mhammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The XPCOM objects exposed
> by Python can be made a GCObject - but I'm not sure how we would
> integrate the rest of the Python universe - eg, assuming we have an
> arbitrary number of Python objects holding pointers to xpcom objects,
MMgc
Replying to several messages/thoughts at once:
1. Losing the cycle collector's support for other languages is
necessary to get C++ and JS on a better footing -- a shared GC heap.
But the idea and even code could be harvested for use by other
language runtimes, since we will still face uncollectabl
On Aug 29, 9:46 am, "L. David Baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > * Delete the cycle collector.
>
> Are we dropping the multi-language aspects of the platform (introduced
> in this milestone, at considerable effort
> inhttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2559
Jason Orendorff wrote:
> * Add thread-safety to MMgc using the Spidermonkey request model.
We currently don't pay the cost of thread-safety for most XPCOM objects,
since most objects are main-thread-only. Would doing this impose
significant performance penalties for locking or atomic operatio
One thing not raised in your proposal is what to do with objects that
are currently *not* refcounted. Two good examples are strings (nsString
and friends) and arrays, for example nsTArray.
If we turn all currently refcounted objects into GCFinalizedObject, then
any nsString and nsTArray inline mem
I definitely think we should try to get rid of reference counting in
favor of garbage collection. There are a few things that I'm worried
about and that needs investigation.
How complicated is embedding going to be? I suspect it's going to be
more complicated than now in some ways, since interacti
On Aug 28, 9:34 am, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More on this in a few hours.
I don't think there's such a thing as a contract that (a) is simple,
(b) is
efficient, (c) supports GC, (d) supports refcounting for objects that
want it,
and (e) really hides memory management implementa
telega wrote:
> Is it possible to use Character encoding converters from Firefox
> extension (javascript) ?
> I want to encode strings from UTF-8 to national encodings
> (windows-1251). I tried to use:
Use nsIScriptableUnicodeConverter.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Writing_textual_data m
On Aug 28, 11:12 am, pranav-sundar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have developed a XULRunner Application. For debugging purpose,
> i would like to add DOM Inspector extension. I added DOM
> Inspector extension of Firefox to XULRunner App, but it is not
> working. I think it is t
Hi
Is it possible to use Character encoding converters from Firefox
extension (javascript) ?
I want to encode strings from UTF-8 to national encodings
(windows-1251). I tried to use:
var charsetManager = Components.classes["@mozilla.org/charset-
converter-manager;1"]
Hi,
I have developed a XULRunner Application. For debugging purpose,
i would like to add DOM Inspector extension. I added DOM
Inspector extension of Firefox to XULRunner App, but it is not
working. I think it is the problem with inspector.dll which is built
on Firefox source code.
AddRef and Release constitute a contract between every XPCOM object
and all its users. The contract governs object lifetimes,
finalization order, and memory management.
Advantages of this specific contract:
1. It's relatively simple.
2. It requires no global coordination.
3. Prompt destruc
In Mozilla 2, we have an opportunity to make major, non-backwards-
compatible changes to XPCOM. What do we actually want to do here?
bsmedberg wrote about this last December.
BSBlog: Improving XPCOM for Mozilla 2
http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006-12-22/improving-xpcom-for-mozilla-2/
Th
Have a look here too:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Implementing_XPCOM_components_in_JavaScript
This page has a complete example that should work.
HTH,
nikitas
mlabs wrote:
> I followed this line by line .. and I still can't get it to work :
>
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an
Or
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/weirdal/XPCOM/XPCOM_CheatSheet.xml#handle-array
nikitas
pranav-sundar wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:35 pm, MADDY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> hi All.
>>
>> can any buddy tell me how to return an array from an xpcom
>> components.
>>
>> actually my project req
I believe you can just do:
gURLBar.value = newurl; // sets the location bar value
handleURLBarCommand(); // loads the URL in the location bar
HTH,
nikitas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My task is to write a Firefox extension which analyses URL requested
> by the user and redirect the browser base
18 matches
Mail list logo
