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
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
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 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 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 2:08 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 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 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 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 12/30/12 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 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
>
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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
