324721 - Make popups more sane

Status: NEW

(Core :: XUL, defect)

Description

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

I said in bug 310638 comment 29:

I don't particularly like the special handling of popup frames...
I think the root cause is that the menu frame hides the child list from the
frame constructor (for performance reasons only?):
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/layout/xul/base/src/nsMenuFrame.cpp&rev=1.305&root=/cvsroot&mark=295-306#292
Do you know if that performance argument still holds?
I think it would be an improvement if they could be handled like any other
frame...

============================================================================

Boris said in bug 310638 comment 32:

> Do you know if that performance argument still holds?

No idea.  Ask bryner, since it's his code?  I can't follow what changes were
made there, esp. since none of the bugs have a diff in them.

============================================================================

Boris said in bug 310638 comment 36:

A bug filed on making popups more sane (and mail sent to bryner?)

============================================================================

This is the requested bug report.
Note that DeletingFrameSubtree() will most likely be removed by bug 323105.

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

How does this relate to bug 279703? They seem more or less about the same subject.

Comment 2

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

This bug is about the popup frame storage.  That bug is about how popups are actually opened and closed.

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Note that I'm removing a lot of the special popup stuff in bug 349921.  We should revisit this bug after that.

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

So I guess we still have the weirdness in DoDeletingFrameSubtree...

Comment 5

[Jesse Ruderman]

Is DoDeletingFrameSubtree going to go away completely (in bug 323105) or do popups need to be de-weirded?

Comment 6

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

Minusing since it's unclear what the situation is here.

Comment 7

[Jesse Ruderman]

I nominated this bug because it blocks multiple sg:critical bugs.

Comment 8

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

Yeah, but it's not clear what needs to be done.

Comment 9

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

This bug is only [wanted-1.9] because it seems to vague to be truly blocking1.9+.  If there are specific dependent bugs that you think are blocking, feel free to nominate them.

Comment 10

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

All the bugs that are blocked by this bug are now fixed.

Comment 11

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Bug 279703 improved the popup code greatly, but I still think that some of
the issues mentioned in comment #0 can be improved.  E.g. with the "private"
frame list and frame destruction related issues, but I think this is something
to look at in relation with frame constructor refactoring post-1.9.
(so the wanted-1.9+ flag should be removed IMO)

Comment 12

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

At this point we're mostly using "wanted-1.9" to flag things we should work on after 1.9, as far as I can tell...