On 3/6/2014 4:05 PM, Benoit Girard wrote:
Thanks for doing this.
However I feel like our options for code that need preferences off the main
thread are a bit poor.
Yes. This is mostly intentional, because it's unusual to actually have
user preferences affect threaded code behavior in ways that
On Thursday 2014-03-06 19:52 -0800, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > It's taken over 3 years, but Bug 619487 is now fixed, and the
> > preferences service will assert (fatally) if you try to use it off the
> > main thread.
>
> Out of curiosity, wha
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> It's taken over 3 years, but Bug 619487 is now fixed, and the
> preferences service will assert (fatally) if you try to use it off the
> main thread.
Out of curiosity, what's the benefit of this? Is it just a correctness
issue? The bug didn't hav
Thanks for doing this.
However I feel like our options for code that need preferences off the main
thread are a bit poor. The first option is to send an IPC message to the
main thread but that has very poor performance, requires a lot of
boilerplate code and either an sync message or async+restruc
Huzzah! Well done Kyle.
On Mar 6, 2014 8:20 AM, "Kyle Huey" wrote:
> It's taken over 3 years, but Bug 619487 is now fixed, and the
> preferences service will assert (fatally) if you try to use it off the
> main thread. This is currently disabled on b2g while I track down the
> last misuses of th
It's taken over 3 years, but Bug 619487 is now fixed, and the
preferences service will assert (fatally) if you try to use it off the
main thread. This is currently disabled on b2g while I track down the
last misuses of the pref service in b2g-specific code.
After the next train leaves I plan to u
6 matches
Mail list logo
