704624 - Implement static DOM operations

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: XPConnect, defect)

Description

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Currenty IDB has a special case in nsDOMClassInfo: <http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/nsDOMClassInfo.cpp#5863>.

Comment 1

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

I think we're unlikely to make too many enhancements to nsDOMClassInfo until we see how the new DOM bindings play out, no? Perhaps I don't understand the motivations here.

On that note, Ms2ger, I very much appreciate the bugs you file, but would appreciate them even more if you provided more context. The descriptions are often cryptic one-liners that are accessible to a select few people, and the benefits of fixing the bug are often ambiguous.

I think filing bugs without descriptions is fine for bugs immediately assigned to oneself. But if the bug is being filed solely to "get it on record", I think it's worth the effort to provide a bit more background for whoever next runs across it. :-)

Comment 2

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

That's my fault, I told him to file this.

Comment 3

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

(In reply to Bobby Holley (:bholley) from comment #1)
> I think we're unlikely to make too many enhancements to nsDOMClassInfo until
> we see how the new DOM bindings play out, no? Perhaps I don't understand the
> motivations here.

Indeed; the idea is more that we'd implement it in IDL/XPConnect and get rid of the special case in nsDOMClassInfo.

Comment 4

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

(In reply to Ms2ger from comment #3)

> Indeed; the idea is more that we'd implement it in IDL/XPConnect and get rid
> of the special case in nsDOMClassInfo.

Are we sure we'd be using XPIDL / XPConnect for the new DOM bindings? jst isn't sure about it, which is why he's suggested holding off on too much new WebIDL shininess in XPIDL (nullable types, overloading, etc).

Comment 5

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Let me rephrase that, then... I expect us to implement static operations by an annotation in some kind of IDL format, and code in some kind of cross-platform bindings code. Whether we'll use the names XPIDL/XPConnect or something else I don't know.

Comment 6

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

makes sense.

Comment 7

[BMO Automation]

Per policy at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bug_Triage/Projects/Bug_Handling/Bug_Husbandry#Inactive_Bugs. If this bug is not an enhancement request or a bug not present in a supported release of Firefox, then it may be reopened.

Comment 8

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

WebIDL bindings have supported static ops for a while now.