Feature Removed: View Source in new window

(My apologies for not sending an Intent to Unship in advance.) In bug 1418403, the (disabled by default) ability to have View Source open in its traditional separate window was removed. Instead, View Source now always opens in new browser tab. Telemetry was collected[1] back in 2015 to see who wa

Unifying the common platform parity-* whiteboard flags as keywords

I've filed a bug[1] proposing that we create the following four keywords in bugzilla, and use the new keywords to replace the various whiteboard flags (and their uppercase variants) indented under each keyword: compat-blink parity-blink parity-chrome parity-opera compat-edge parity-edge

PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

It is now possible[1] to create chrome-only WebIDL interfaces in the dom/chrome-webidl/ directory that do not require review by DOM peers after every change. If you maintain an internal performance-sensitive XPIDL interface, or are considering creating one, I'd encourage you to consider migrati

Re: Prefs overhaul

This looks like great work - I'm very glad to see us investing in improvements to core infrastructure like this. Thanks Nick! On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Hi, > > I've been doing a lot of work to improve libpref recently, and there is > more in the pipeline. I've

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the impact on our binary size. Fundamentally, the WebIDL bindings improve performance and spec correctness at the expense of code size (and build times).

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:52PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the impact on our binary size. Fundamentally, the WebIDL bindings improve performance and

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:06:57PM -0800, Kris Maglione wrote: The amount of WebIDL overhead I regularly see in profiles can be staggering. The amount of *XPConnect* overhead... ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://list

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

Generally I think we’d take performance and memory wins over installer size, but we monitor all three and if installer size grows (gradually) by an uncomfortable amount we ought to make a call on the trade off. We can bring it to product should that happen. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:07 PM Kris Magl

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

Kris Maglione 2018 March 8 at 15:06 At any rate, I don't expect us to convert anywhere near all of our XPIDL interfaces to WebIDL. A lot of them don't need to be exposed to JS at all. A lot of those should still go away, but they don't need WebIDL bindings, just c

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:10:19PM -0800, Myk Melez wrote: Kris Maglione 2018 March 8 at 15:06 At any rate, I don't expect us to convert anywhere near all of our XPIDL interfaces to WebIDL. A lot of them don't need to be exposed to JS at all. A lot of those should

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:52PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces >> to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the >> impact on our binary

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:16:44PM +, Stuart Philp wrote: > Generally I think we’d take performance and memory wins over installer > size, but we monitor all three and if installer size grows (gradually) by > an uncomfortable amount we ought to make a call on the trade off. We can > bring it to

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:52PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: > I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces > to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the > impact on our binary size. > > Fundamentally, the WebIDL bindings improve performa

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:52PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: > > I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces > > to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the > > impact on our binary s

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: > The problem is precisely that it's gradual - a few kilobytes at a > time, certainly nothing to trigger our alerts. Waiting for it all to > pile up and then launching a herculean effort to move things _back_ to > XPIDL would be a huge waste of t

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > I was just measuring the methods themselves via |nm --print-size|. There > might be additional per-method overhead in the data segment for the > associated static tables, but the baseline size for the code itself > (argument conversion, error

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:41:38PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Kris Maglione wrote: That said, if we're worried about binary size becoming an issue for internal interfaces, there are things we can do to reduce the code size of bindings. Particularly if we're willi

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:41:38PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Kris Maglione >> wrote: >> >>> That said, if we're worried about binary size becoming an issue for >>> internal interfaces, there are things w

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > It might be worth measuring how that translates to installer code. One > might hope that all that repetitive boilerplate code compresses well > (or can be made to). Testing my local bug 1341546 patches, I get a 59 KiB increase in .tar.bz2

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On 3/8/18 8:04 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: Last time I looked at bindings, I was horrified to see all the various strings that all look the same except between bindings for field and class names. So for what it's worth, I tried measuring this recently. When measuring with "size" on Mac, if I just

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On 3/8/18 11:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I expect there is, but it wasn't super-obvious low-hanging fruit. Sorry, I should have been clearer: there wasn't super-obvious low-hanging fruit in the getter/setter/method bits. At least the parts of it I poked at. There might also be low-hanging

Re: PSA: Chrome-only WebIDL interfaces no longer require DOM peer review

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Stuart Philp wrote: > Generally I think we’d take performance and memory wins over installer > size, but we monitor all three and if installer size grows (gradually) by > an uncomfortable amount we ought to make a call on the trade off. We can > bring it to product