Closed
Bug 293818
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
[FIXr]Need document API for deferring onload
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect, P1)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.8beta2
People
(Reporter: bzbarsky, Assigned: bzbarsky)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
13.45 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
We've discussed this a few times, and I've run into really needing it for some
work I'm doing, so I went ahead and put this together...
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
This is a really basic impl; we may want to make BlockOnload() be a no-op if
onload has already fired, but that's something I'd be leery of trying to do in
1.8....
Attachment #183324 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #183324 -
Flags: review?(darin)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•20 years ago
|
OS: Linux → All
Priority: -- → P1
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: Need document API for deferring onload → [FIX]Need document API for deferring onload
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.8beta2
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Why does nsOnloadBlocker need a mLoadGroup member variable? Who calls
SetLoadGroup/GetLoadGroup on it?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Hmm... Apparently no one. I thought adding to the loadgroup did...
Should I be setting it before I call AddRequest on the loadgroup? We seem to do
that for our current dummy layout requests.
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
I don't see any reason for this request to have a loadgroup of its own.
Normally, one sets a loadgroup on a request, so that that request will
automatically add and remove itself from the loadgroup when it starts and
finishes. In this case, you are manually adding/removing the request to/from
the loadgroup, so there is no need to tell the request about the loadgroup ;-)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Ah, I see. Sounds good. Consider that member and the relevant code removed. ;)
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 183324 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch
sr=jst
Attachment #183324 -
Flags: superreview?(jst) → superreview+
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 183324 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch
r=darin w/ the loadgroup cruft that we discussed removed.
Attachment #183324 -
Flags: review?(darin) → review+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Requesting 1.8b2 approval... This is a pretty safe patch that shouldn't change
any existing behavior but should make some other changes I'm still aiming for
for 1.8 much simpler.
Attachment #183324 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #183424 -
Flags: approval1.8b2?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•20 years ago
|
Summary: [FIX]Need document API for deferring onload → [FIXr]Need document API for deferring onload
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 183424 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch updated to comments
a=asa
Attachment #183424 -
Flags: approval1.8b2? → approval1.8b2+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #183424 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Does this allow replacing the DummyLayoutRequest? If so, could you file a bug
on that?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
That was one of the goals, yes. For 1.9, I'd like to try. Bug 294114 filed for
the layout request, and bug 294115 filed for the parser request.
Updated•6 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•