On Jun 23, 2016 1:33 AM, "Andrew McCreight" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Henri Sivonen
wrote:
>
> > Now that I'm looking at the hand-written notes that I made in the
> > meeting, I notice that the above paragraph fails to say how the
> > AddRef, Release and associated cycle collect
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Now that I'm looking at the hand-written notes that I made in the
> meeting, I notice that the above paragraph fails to say how the
> AddRef, Release and associated cycle collection-related calls are
> routed from C++ to Rust or from Rust to
Mozilla Cross-Reference, better known as MXR (https://mxr.mozilla.org), was
taken offline on June 13, 2016, to investigate a potential security issue.
After careful review of the codebase, we have decided to accelerate the
planned transition from MXR to its more modern equivalent, DXR (
https://dxr
Sure - it's just a question of whether this level of hackery is desirable
for integrating with the rest of Gecko (a platform we control). I suspect
that we can probably solve whatever use-cases arise in cleaner ways, but we
should wait for use-cases to appear first.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:33 A
> I do not recall dismissing exposing COM-compatible vtables from Rust.
We must implement COM interfaces in Rust for Windows platform things*
already. Specifically I have macros that generate IUnknown which for
Windows COM includes AddRef, Release, and QueryInterface. For COM
interfaces with singl
On 2016-06-22 1:05 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Additionally, there was some discussion about reference counting.
Implementing an XPCOM binding for Rust was not a popular idea and was
discarded. Still, it was considered important to be able to use
Gecko-style reference counting in a cycle collector-
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Francis wrote:
> Can we make suggestions about how to improve the charter rather than just
> oppose it? I don't necessarily agree with the technical approach the group
> is currently taking, but I do agree that the Web of Things could be a
> valuable area
On 22 June 2016 at 17:18, L. David Baron wrote:
> So opposing it takes both a good bit of energy and a potentially a
> good bit of political capital (in that it might reduce the
> seriousness with which people take future objections that we make).
> Do you think it's actually worth getting involv
Last week, people interested in the matter met to talk about
implementing DOM APIs in Rust. Here are my notes.
The summary of the meeting is that we shouldn't be designing bridge
framework type of stuff ahead of time and for the time being we should
instead address issues as they arise.
We should
On Monday 2016-06-20 01:38 -0700, mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:06:39 PM UTC+10, David Baron wrote:
>
> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> > support or oppose it.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
