Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 4/19/18 3:53 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: If I understand correctly, with these changes I could now just use Promise instead. Not yet, as Andrew said. This just makes things declared as "interface Something { ... }" in .webidl files work. Promise is not one of those things. That said, I

Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Kris Maglione
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:58:33PM -0700, Andrew McCreight wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: If I understand correctly, with these changes I could now just use Promise instead. Is that correct? Can I declare it including the resolution result of the promise, ie can

Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Kris Maglione
\o/ On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:19:27PM -0400, Nika Layzell wrote: Yesterday, bug 1444991 landed on inbound, which adds support for using WebIDL defined objects directly inside of XPIDL definition files. This allows us to avoid using nsISupp

Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Andrew McCreight
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > Dumb question because I don't do this very often - sorry! > > I am intending to async-ify a sync JS-implemented idl-defined API (which > currently returns an unsigned long), that has a few C++ consumers. I was > thinking the simplest solu

Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
Dumb question because I don't do this very often - sorry! I am intending to async-ify a sync JS-implemented idl-defined API (which currently returns an unsigned long), that has a few C++ consumers. I was thinking the simplest solution would be a separate method definition in the idl that took

Re: Using WebIDL objects in XPIDL

2018-04-19 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 4/18/18 11:19 PM, Nika Layzell wrote: This allows us to avoid using nsISupports to pass WebIDL objects which don't have corresponding XPIDL interfaces through XPIDL defined methods. This is awesome. In particular, it means we can pass WebIDL things through XPIDL without adding weird "QI to

Re: Intent to implement: Early, experimental support for application/javascript+binast

2018-04-19 Thread Honza Bambas
On 2018-04-18 19:13, David Teller wrote: No plans yet, but it's a good idea. The only reason not to do this (that I can think of) is that we might prefer switching to the Bytecode Cache, which would probably give us even better speed ups. I understand that we can't use the Bytecode Cache for our