1136345 - Nix the parent argument from JS_NewObjectWithGivenProto; convert the consumers that still need to use it to a new JS_NewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent API

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Attachment: Drop the parent arg from JS_NewObjectWithGivenProto and introduce a JS_NewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent for the few cases that still pass in a custom parent

Comment 2

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

Comment on attachment 8568765 [details] [diff] [review]
Drop the parent arg from JS_NewObjectWithGivenProto and introduce a JS_NewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent for the few cases that still pass in a custom parent

Review of attachment 8568765 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: js/src/ctypes/CTypes.cpp
@@ +909,5 @@
>    MOZ_ASSERT(fnproto);
>  
>    // Set up ctypes.CType.prototype.
> +  RootedObject prototype(cx, JS_NewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent(cx, &sCTypeProtoClass,
> +                                                                 fnproto, parent));

*evil eye*

::: js/src/jsfriendapi.h
@@ +66,5 @@
>  // attached to them.
>  extern JS_FRIEND_API(JSObject *)
>  JS_NewObjectWithoutMetadata(JSContext *cx, const JSClass *clasp, JS::Handle<JSObject*> proto);
>  
> +// Like JS_NewObjectWithGivenProto but allows passing an explicit parent argument.  Don't use this; it's deprecated.

If you can think of a way to squirrel Deprecated into the function name, that'd be awesome.  The comment's nice, but we both know most people won't read it.  I'm totally fine making it JS_DeprecatedNewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent so it's obnoxious enough people will want to use it even less, if you are!

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

> *evil eye*

Yeah, so, I was going to try to go through those remaining consumers, at some point....

> I'm totally fine making it JS_DeprecatedNewObjectWithGivenProtoAndParent

Done.

Comment 4

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

(In reply to Not doing reviews right now from comment #3)
> > *evil eye*
> 
> Yeah, so, I was going to try to go through those remaining consumers, at
> some point....

This was an evil eye at the code, not at you, and not at happening to preserve the case for now.  :-)  Just to be clear.

In general, as long as we make forward progress on a problem, even if it's incomplete forward progress, I'm satisfied.  We have more good code after this, and no good code has become bad.  That's a win for me.

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

> This was an evil eye at the code, not at you

Sure, I got that.  ;)  You should look at bug 1136523.

Comment 6

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/186c909aa7f0

Comment 7

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/186c909aa7f0