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

2018-03-09 Thread Zibi Braniecki (Gandalf)
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > I just looked at the first 10 methods/attributes on that interface. None > of them are remotely performance-sensitive, and several are test-only. If > we see certain methods on it show up in profiles, we should move those > methods to WebIDL,

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

2018-03-09 Thread Ted Mielczarek
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > (C) The API uses complex arguments like promises that XPIDL doesn't handle > in a nice way. I think this is an understated point. WebIDL was designed explicitly to allow expressing the semantics of JS APIs, where XPIDL is some arbitrary set o

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

2018-03-09 Thread Peter Van der Beken via dev-platform
On 09/03/2018 00:06, Kris Maglione wrote: There are different costs to WebIDL and XPIDL bindings. WebIDL bindings have more cost in terms of compiled code size. XPIDL have greater costs in terms of performance and runtime memory. It's not that simple. In terms of runtime memory for example, XP

Who can review licenses these days?

2018-03-09 Thread David Teller
I'll need a license review for a vendored Rust package. Who can perform these reviews these days? Thanks, Yoric ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

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

2018-03-09 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Zibi Braniecki (Gandalf) < zbranie...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Bobby Holley > wrote: > >> I just looked at the first 10 methods/attributes on that interface. None >> of them are remotely performance-sensitive, and several are test-

Re: Who can review licenses these days?

2018-03-09 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM, David Teller wrote: > I'll need a license review for a vendored Rust package. Who can perform > these reviews these days? > We have an allow list of licenses in our Cargo config. So if the license is already allowed, you can reference the crate in a Cargo.toml and

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

2018-03-09 Thread Jeff Muizelaar
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> (C) The API uses complex arguments like promises that XPIDL doesn't handle >> in a nice way. > > I think this is an understated point. WebIDL was designed explicitly to allow > expressi

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

2018-03-09 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> (C) The API uses complex arguments like promises that XPIDL doesn't > handle > >> in a nice way. > > > > I think this is an

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

2018-03-09 Thread Myk Melez
Kris Maglione 2018 March 8 at 16:22 Removing XPCOM entirely is not really a possibility. Removing XPConnect bindings entirely is... theoretically possible, but would be a monumental amount of work, and is not something I've heard anyone seriously suggest. If we r

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

2018-03-09 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Myk Melez wrote: > If we removed XPConnect bindings entirely and converted XPIDL interfaces > used only by C++ into concrete native classes, then what else would > continue to need XPCOM? > What's your definition of XPCOM? Look in xpcom/, there is a ton of stuff