Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-03-09 Thread nsm . nikhil
Removed pref on m-c. This will ship in 39 except for cache mode and authentication prompt. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-22 Thread Ben Kelly
> On Feb 21, 2015, at 7:44 PM, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: > Ben, are you ok with the clone() that just landed being enabled? If so, I'll > flip the pref. Clone should be good to go. Thanks! Ben ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-21 Thread nsm . nikhil
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:26:25 AM UTC-8, Benjamin Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > >> 1) ESR - FF 38 is an ESR release and shipping a new API with some parts > >> not yet supported may not be the best thing to do. What is the usual policy > >

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-20 Thread Benjamin Kelly
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 18/02/15 17:31, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: > It's still disappointing that we are implementing greenfield > web technologies with such an ad-hoc approach to obtaining > interoperability. This seems like a clear case where we could have

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-19 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/19/15 2:26 PM, Benjamin Kelly wrote: It seems to me that backporting to dom/fetch should be relatively straightforward. Its pretty isolated code. The real question there is how much churn you expect in that code over the next year as the pieces that aren't one yet end up happening. If

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-19 Thread Benjamin Kelly
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/18/15 12:06 PM, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: > >> 1) ESR - FF 38 is an ESR release and shipping a new API with some parts >> not yet supported may not be the best thing to do. What is the usual policy >> in such a situation? >> > > How h

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-19 Thread Brian Smith
wrote: > Target release: FF 38 or 39 (feedback requested) > Currently hidden behind: dom.fetch.enabled. > Bug to enable by default: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1133861 Great work! Is there a test that verifies that fetch is correctly handled by nsIContentPolicy (for extensions l

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-19 Thread James Graham
On 18/02/15 17:31, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: > We have fairly comprehensive mochitests in dom/workers/tests/fetch > and dom/tests/mochitests/fetch. The blink intent to ship email, at > the bottom, has a section which documents Canary performing well on > our tests. In addition, we pass (except f

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-18 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/18/15 12:06 PM, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: 1) ESR - FF 38 is an ESR release and shipping a new API with some parts not yet supported may not be the best thing to do. What is the usual policy in such a situation? How happy are you backporting security fixes for this code that pop up ove

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-18 Thread nsm . nikhil
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 9:21:28 AM UTC-8, James Graham wrote: > > > Support in other engines: > > Blink: supports Fetch in ServiceWorkers since 40, and intend to enable it > > on Window in 42 or 43 - > > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/fetch$20api/b

Re: Intent to Ship: Fetch API

2015-02-18 Thread James Graham
On 18/02/15 17:06, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: > Support in other engines: > Blink: supports Fetch in ServiceWorkers since 40, and intend to enable it on > Window in 42 or 43 - > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/fetch$20api/blink-dev/qwRO52vsQlU/CPLC4G6oG9IJ W