rename NS_DOWNLOAD_CONTRACTID to NS_TRANSFER_CONTRACTID

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla1.8beta1

Status

Core Graveyard
File Handling
RESOLVED FIXED
13 years ago
a year ago

People

(Reporter: Biesinger, Assigned: Biesinger)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla1.8beta1

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(1 attachment)

since the interfaces it describes are generic ones, and gecko may want to use it
for uploads at some point, the contractid should refer to transfers rather than
downloads.

(both the string and the #define name)

references:
bug 241082 comment 12
Message-Id: <41DD5AEC.7010206@web.de> and the thread following it (private mail)
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/search?string=download_contrac for my reference
(plus http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/search?string=download%3B1 )
Created attachment 173536 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Attachment #173536 - Flags: superreview?(darin)
Attachment #173536 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.8beta
I should note: this patch keeps binary compat w/ 1.8alpha6, as it still looks
for  @mozilla.org/download;1 if @mozilla.org/transfer;1 is not found.

but the IID of this interface changed in alpha6. so this is not really
compatible with versions before that. so... maybe this compat code (two lines)
is not useful?

let me know if you think I should remove it :-)
Comment on attachment 173536 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

r=bzbarsky, but could we file bugs on all the header sniffer impls that use
HEAD, similar to the bug we have filed on Firefox?
Attachment #173536 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+

Comment 6

13 years ago
Comment on attachment 173536 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

>Index: uriloader/exthandler/nsExternalHelperAppService.cpp

>+  nsCOMPtr<nsITransfer> tr = do_CreateInstance(NS_TRANSFER_CONTRACTID, &rv);
>+  // Using the old contractid for compatibility (pre-1.8beta)
>+  if (NS_FAILED(rv))
>+    tr = do_CreateInstance("@mozilla.org/download;1", &rv);

But, hasn't nsITransfer changed?  What's the point in supporting
the old ContractID if the interface won't be supported, or are 
you thinking that this might keep some JS implementations limping
along?
Attachment #173536 - Flags: superreview?(darin) → superreview+

Comment 7

13 years ago
> let me know if you think I should remove it :-)

Yeah, I vote for removing it.
ok. checked in, without the download;1 compat code.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.