On 01/19/2015 09:36 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I've seen people bring up supporting this sort of stuff in the past, which
usually tends to generate a flurry of "+1 this would be wonderful!" but
ultimately everything peters out before anything gets done.
The problem was not the solution, but the lack of motivated reply to use
such API. If we had more people motivated to make use of such API to
implement a code-coverage, a taint-analysis, or whatever is useful for the
mission then we would probably have scheduled some time to implement such API.
Indeed, everybody did their "+1 would be great", but only one person
mentioned that he would take action if we did so. Having an API with no
users is worse than not having any API (e4x?).
> Some of this may
> due to be trying to create an overly-general design that solves all the
> problems™.
This "general design" is a pragmatic approach to help people implement
different variant of taint-analysis without having to implement taint
analysis in SpiderMonkey. Identically for code-coverage, how much time do
you want to spend at doing code-coverage vs. running code? This is part of
the implementation design of the analysis.
The choice of analysis is unlikely to ever become a primary focus for the JS
Team, so the only way to raise its importance is to increase the user base
by making an Analysis API which targets a wider audience.
Is there any prospect for this sort of stuff getting done this year?
AFAIK, no.
Maybe some potential users will show up and mention that they are willing to
get their hand dirty if we were to implement an Analysis API as discussed
back in June. In which case we might be able to raise again the question
about scheduling this work.
--
Nicolas B. Pierron
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
