Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/30/12 4:43 PM, Neil wrote:
(I would actually expect the proto of an Xray for a content object to
be an [xpconnect wrapped native prototype]
If you expect that for WebIDL objects... you're going to be
disappointed. ;)
Yeah, well I still wish Xrays had been imple
Bobby Holley wrote:
In the long term, I'd like for Xray wrappers to behave more logically with
respect to the prototype chain than they have in the past. I believe that Peter
has already taken the first step by giving us meaningful Xrays to DOM
prototypes and interface objects
What does mean
do I need to install windows mercurial to download the jsm files ..
or is there an alternative (simpler) method?
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Which jsm files are you looking for? You can browse the mozilla-central
repo (and download individual files) on the web here:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
Margaret
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:59 AM, rvj wrote:
> do I need to install windows mercurial to download the jsm files ..
>
> or
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Neil wrote:
> Bobby Holley wrote:
>
> In the long term, I'd like for Xray wrappers to behave more logically
>> with respect to the prototype chain than they have in the past. I believe
>> that Peter has already taken the first step by giving us meaningful Xrays
>
On 12/30/12 11:14 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
1) How do we want this to work going forward for chrome touching content?
|obj instanceof Node| should return true.
2) How do we want this to work going forward for web pages touching other
web pages?
|obj instanceof Node| should return false until
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 12/30/12 11:14 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> 1) How do we want this to work going forward for chrome touching content?
>>
>> |obj instanceof Node| should return true.
>>
>> 2) How do we want this to work going forward for web pages touc
On 12/31/12 4:26 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Well, if we're talking about JS-implemented WebAPIs, then that stuff should
be running as chrome, potentially in the content process (unless I'm
mistaken - I'm still a bit behind on all the b2g architecture). If we're
talking about web apps, then they're s
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 12/31/12 4:26 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> Well, if we're talking about JS-implemented WebAPIs, then that stuff
>> should
>> be running as chrome, potentially in the content process (unless I'm
>> mistaken - I'm still a bit behind on all
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> It also sounds from your initial post that other vendors weren't very
> receptive to the idea. If so, that's a shame. Maybe we could try again?
>
I interpreted Boris to mean other vendors were apathetic rather than
opposed.
If it was just ap
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I interpreted Boris to mean other vendors were apathetic rather than
> opposed.
>
> If it was just apathy, then I think we should go for it and make
> instanceof magic for WebIDL interface objects in both content and chrome,
> and try to
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> But IIUC the magic already works via XPConnect/nsDOMClassInfo quirks. This
> is why Gaia developers are starting to rely on it, and why Boris is
> wondering whether he should propagate that magic into WebIDL bindings.
>
> So we've already been
On 12/31/12 5:08 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
I think we should consider any reliance on this behavior a bug for
now
Fine. Then the question becomes: how do we _not_ rely on this behavior?
As smaug pointed out upthread there is actually no sane way to do that
right now.
It also sounds from yo
On 12/31/12 8:25 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
They were, as roc points out, apathetic. Or rather, there was some talk
about it being a good idea but no concrete proposals and nothing
actually happening.
That said, I posted one more time on public-script-coord (and bcced
es-discuss) just to see if
Another way of looking at the problem: should there be an API to determine
if an object implements a particular WebIDL interface? I hope we agree the
answer is yes... In that case, what would we call it? Can we call it
something that doesn't sound like "instanceOf", and explain with a straight
face
15 matches
Mail list logo
