Re: Nightly Only Containers Feature

2016-06-17 Thread Karl Dubost
Tanvi, Le 16 juin 2016 à 11:42, Tanvi Vyas a écrit : > This week we enabled the Containers feature for testing in Nightly. Just wonderful. It ties to another previous thread. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/fmJ1UEENbfM > [1] Take this 2-minute survey or email conta

Re: Return-value-optimization when return type is RefPtr

2016-06-17 Thread smaug
On 06/16/2016 06:40 PM, smaug wrote: On 05/24/2016 08:33 AM, jww...@mozilla.com wrote: For RefPtr GetFoo() { RefPtr foo; // ... } should we: 1. return foo and expect RVO to kick in to eliminate additional AddRef/Release 2. return foo.forget() 3. return Move(foo) Which one is preferred?

Re: Nightly Only Containers Feature

2016-06-17 Thread Gabriela Montagu
Hello, I am a long time QA Nightly tester. I usually have my 3 gmail accounts open in pinned tabs on the same browser without any issues. If you could please tell me how Containers will improve my user experience, I would greatly appreciate it! I'll be happy to test this featured anyway! Best re

Re: Nightly Only Containers Feature

2016-06-17 Thread Alessio Placitelli
Gabriela, I think in your case it works because you "Added" the other accounts to your main account. In general, if you open a gmail account and then try to open another, unconnected gmail account in another tab, it opens the former again. With containers, you will be able to open different, unco

WebRTC connections do not trigger content policies. Should they?

2016-06-17 Thread Paul Ellenbogen
At the moment, WebRTC does not check if connections are okay by content policies . WebRTC data channels as a side channel around content policy has potential for abuse. For example, ad blockers use c

Re: Return-value-optimization when return type is RefPtr

2016-06-17 Thread Gerald Squelart
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:31:15 PM UTC+1, smaug wrote: > On 06/16/2016 06:40 PM, smaug wrote: > > On 05/24/2016 08:33 AM, jw...@mozilla.com wrote: > >> For > >> > >> RefPtr GetFoo() { > >>RefPtr foo; > >>// ... > >> } > >> > >> should we: > >> > >> 1. return foo and expect RVO to kick i

Re: Return-value-optimization when return type is RefPtr

2016-06-17 Thread Gerald Squelart
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 3:57:01 PM UTC+1, Gerald Squelart wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:31:15 PM UTC+1, smaug wrote: > > On 06/16/2016 06:40 PM, smaug wrote: > > > On 05/24/2016 08:33 AM, jw...@mozilla.com wrote: > > >> For > > >> > > >> RefPtr GetFoo() { > > >>RefPtr foo; > > >>

Re: Nightly Only Containers Feature

2016-06-17 Thread Gabriela Montagu
Alessio, Many thanks for answering me so quickly, I greatly appreciate it! You're right of course! I agree,it will be cool! I'll try this as soon as I can as I am now recovering from a broken elbow and surgery. Best regards, Gabriela On 17 Jun 2016 11:22, "Alessio Placitelli" wrote: > Gabriela,

Re: Return-value-optimization when return type is RefPtr

2016-06-17 Thread Gabriele Svelto
On 17/06/2016 16:57, Gerald Squelart wrote: > From what *I* understand, RVO is guaranteed (or at least supported > everywhere?) when there is only one stack variable that is returned, e.g.: > C foo() > { > C rv; > // ... (put stuff in rv) > return rv; > } > In this case, the caller function

Re: Return-value-optimization when return type is RefPtr

2016-06-17 Thread smaug
On 06/17/2016 04:01 PM, Gerald Squelart wrote: On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 3:57:01 PM UTC+1, Gerald Squelart wrote: On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:31:15 PM UTC+1, smaug wrote: On 06/16/2016 06:40 PM, smaug wrote: On 05/24/2016 08:33 AM, jw...@mozilla.com wrote: For RefPtr GetFoo() { RefPt

Re: WebRTC connections do not trigger content policies. Should they?

2016-06-17 Thread Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
Data channels are modeled on web sockets, and I see we do this for web sockets. https://bugzil.la/692067 However, data channels are typically opened to other *clients*, not servers. What would the ContentLocation URI be in this case? The (dynamic) IP used to reach the other client? This seem