On 4/22/2014 12:46 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/22/14, 12:24 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I consider Promise more like a generic platform feature (considering
that the specification is moving to ES6 instead of DOM)
ES assumes you always have a global. In fact, until ES6 it assumed
that there
On 4/22/14, 12:24 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I managed to, in one of my playground techniques, create a global using
a backstage pass and some xpconnect APIs, so it's not impossible but it
is damn annoying.
Right. If you don't have a global to start with, your life will
_really_ suck if you
On 4/21/2014 10:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/21/14, 11:35 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I'm referring to using a Promise, essentially, in backend code of
Thunderbird. There is no "window"
I mean Window in the "DOM Window" sense.
Promises can be created using some other global (which one is
On 4/21/14, 11:35 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I'm referring to using a Promise, essentially, in backend code of
Thunderbird. There is no "window"
I mean Window in the "DOM Window" sense.
Promises can be created using some other global (which one is up to the
person creating it), but typically
On 4/21/2014 9:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/21/14, 7:31 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
Now, creating a Promise (via mozilla::dom::Promise) from C++ and passing
it to JS is possible but kind of difficult, since I need to materialize
an nsIGlobalObject which requires too much code.
You basicall
On 4/21/14, 7:31 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
Now, creating a Promise (via mozilla::dom::Promise) from C++ and passing
it to JS is possible but kind of difficult, since I need to materialize
an nsIGlobalObject which requires too much code.
You basically need the window the promise will be associ
Right now, the received wisdom as I understand it is that Promises are
the hot, hip new way to do asynchronous programming. So, over here in
$WE_WANT_TO_REMOVE_CRUFT, I proposed adding a new API that returns a
Promise for all the JS consumers. This new API, naturally, is to be
implemented in JS
On 2014-04-21 1:07 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
On Sat 19 Apr 2014 08:36:22 AM PDT, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
egrep "^(\\[[0-9]*\\] |)WARNING" $1 | egrep NS_ENSURE | grep -v "sort
operation has occurred for the SQL statement" | sort | uniq -f1 -c |
sort -n -r
It'd be easier if you threw in a *little* b
This meeting has been cancelled as there’s nothing substantial on the agenda.
-Jeff
On Apr 21, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
> (Sorry for the late notice, I should have sent this out before the weekend,
> but the holiday meant I missed the reminder.)
>
>
> The Rendering meeting i
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> +It is '''highly unlikely''' that we will expose this functionality
> +to the web at large.
I would rather say that "we should avoid exposing this functionality
to the web at large."
Otherwise it sounds like some ominous 3rd party is caus
On 4/21/2014 11:50 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
You can check CONFIG['MOZ_BUILD_APP'] against what you pass to
--enable-application in mozconfig files. So that would be 'mailnews' (or
'mail'?) and 'suite' for Thunderbird and Seamonkey respectively.
Actually, CONFIG['MOZ_THUNDERBIRD'] and CONFIG['MOZ
On Sat 19 Apr 2014 08:36:22 AM PDT, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
> egrep "^(\\[[0-9]*\\] |)WARNING" $1 | egrep NS_ENSURE | grep -v "sort
> operation has occurred for the SQL statement" | sort | uniq -f1 -c |
> sort -n -r
It'd be easier if you threw in a *little* bit of perl:
perl -lne 'print $1 if /
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ISHIKAWA, Chiaki wrote:
> (2014/04/18 2:00), Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
>> On 2014-04-17, 10:00 AM, Neil wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not done preparing the removal patches yet, but with my current
patch queue I can already get 149 KB off of A
(Sorry for the late notice, I should have sent this out before the weekend, but
the holiday meant I missed the reminder.)
The Rendering meeting is about all things Gfx, Image, Layout, and Media.
It takes place every second Monday, alternating between 2:30pm PDT and 5:30pm
PDT.
The next meeting
Hi,
I've been told that it would be nice if we had stronger language in our
API exposure guidelines [1] around when we deviate from them. This is
mostly applicable when we expose things to Firefox OS applications. The
changes I propose to the "Special cases" section [2] are:
-There will o
15 matches
Mail list logo
