I believe Hidden Window is used only to act as a parent for otherwise parentless dialogs, and it's a bad parent. It should be possible now to remove it from the process of opening parentless windows entirely (now that task/bug 67368 is done). This is important for embedding, since it looks like we'll never be able to guarantee proper parents for all dialogs. And since without this change, that implies a dependency on Hidden Window, which is missing from embedded builds. (Hidden Window can't be removed from the Macintosh build, since there it serves a second purpose of holding the menubar when no visible window is present.)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Depends on: 67368
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9
(Note: implementation for this bug involves using WindowWatcher to open windows without parents, but for a dependent window with no parent specified, to attempt to attach it to the topmost window, whatever it is.)
Created attachment 30353 [details] [diff] [review] replaces most of the important uses of hidden window
r=javi for the psm-glue patches. Eventually I'd like to see a #define for the window watcher contract ID just in case it were to change one day. :)
As a heads up warning, it appears that this may have broken remote control of Mozilla on Unix (or at least Linux).
[cc'ing DOM and security folk] Yeah. This may break other stuff too. XPConnect itself does not care about this. But any call from native code into JS via xpconnect has to run on *some* JSContext. It happens that some DOM oriented code *cares* whether or not this is a JSContext created by the DOM system for a window or not. This especially matters to the caps security manager. Thus, we have code to tell the thread JSContext stack service thingy in the xpconnect module to use the hidden window as the 'safe' JSContext to use on the main thread. This smoothes over the transition from native to JS calls in lots of cases. Remove that at your own peril.
Pity me for not realizing this earlier. This is a real problem for embedded distributions, there not being a hidden window in embedding apps. Is there no solution other than forcing embedding apps to create a hidden window for us? Oh, moan.
Until a full solution is figured out, can I agitate for this bug'fix' to be reverted, since it causes at least Mozilla remote control to break? (It's my impression from reading this bug that not having it in is not breaking anything vital, which may be incorrect.)
-remote "openurl(<url>,new-window)" has been fixed. Sorry about that. We now return you to your original programming. Use of hidden window has been largely removed, though there will probably be ramifications. The only one I can foresee is what John pointed out above. Mozilla will be unaffected. But embedded installations, lacking a hidden window, when under conditions where a JS context is needed, will get one that wasn't generated inside a window, and therefore will be missing some bits that code like caps probably depends on. The exact ramifications of this are currently unknown. Top Men profess ignorance. A complete fix will involve a lot of digging into clients of JSContexts which can be called directly from C code without JS on the execution stack, discovering what improperly initialised features of the generted context are important, and faking something. This will be a lot of work. I'm going to say that this task is finished enough for an embedded pre-release and push off the remaining work one milestone.
Whiteboard: stymied; it's important to XPConnect → pseudo-completed
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9 → mozilla0.9.1
I've run into some problems with windows integration, and email@example.com suggested that I mention it here. Originally from bug 59078: "I hope that I'm not being redundant, but I thought I'd give share my situation. I regularly use the daily builds on Win2k and, for several days now, clicking on urls in my email client does nothing (clicking on urls from icq doesn't work either). Normally, I'd expect Mozilla to load the url -- hopefully in an existing browser window, but even loading it in a new browser window would be better than nothing ;). I would have filed a bug report for this, but I wasn't sure if this behavior was covered by this bug report." If indeed this bug is the cause of my woes, then I propose the nsdogfood keyword.
That's bug 50424, fixed by law on 19 Apr.
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9.3 → mozilla0.9.4
removing topembed per edt triage. danm, where do you stand in completing this? what kind of speedup would we get if this was done?
Oh, on linux and windows startup time would improve about 2%. The main reason to do this would be to correct what seems like a mistake before it's immortalized in finalised interfaces. But the mistake is so widely capitalised on... At one time I knew how to fix every use but one. But that one was very hard to fix and more have crept in since. I opine that this bug should lose mindshare to other more visible flaws.
I disagree, but only with respect. A 2% startup increase would be nice. Removing the hidden window before 1.0 is the right thing to do at the right time. The breakage will not affect many users, and can be fixed.
After this comment, I'll shut up. If we are going to back out the links toolbar because it is causing a 3% performance reduction in startup time (see bug 138496), then we should also get rid of the hidden window for causing a 2% reduction. Now I'm shutting up.
I don't know if this is related to the 'hidden window' being discussed here, but: I'm using Forte for Java on Debian GNU/Linux, and have successfully persuaded the debugger to launch Mozilla in the past (Moz 0.9.2). Forte uses "xwininfo -name Netscape" to find a running instance of Netscape, so I just changed it to use "xwininfo -name Mozilla", and that worked with 0.9.2. This seems a prevalent method for browser integration, for example konqueror provides a hidden window called "konqueror". Now I am running 0.9.8 and it can no longer find the running Mozilla instance. Is this because the window has been removed. "xwininfo -name Mozilla" now says no window with that name exists. Or is there now another window name Forte should be looking for? Or the window been put pack in to builds >0.9.8?
In Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) there is a new feature called Exposé that shrinks all windows and shows them all tiled so the user can switch windows quickly. Unfortunately the hidden window shows up and looks really unprofessional. If it can't be removed from mac builds, it at least shouldn't show up in Exposé.
The OS X Exposé problem is bug 223545.
Created attachment 568135 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to create hidden window on demand This patch takes another step of only creating the hidden window when something uses it. A default Windows and Linux build will not create it. This could break any extensions that rely on setting properties on the hidden window. A next step is to remove the hidden window entirely. There is still some code that depends on the hidden window: - WidgetTraceEvent.cpp, Windows only code used or will be used for some performance tests (not startup though) - some mozmill tests - Mac still uses it for the no-windows-open case. Ideally, a patch could be created that would only create the hidden window after a window is closed.
Assignee: nobody → enndeakin
Attachment #30353 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Is WM_POWERBROADCAST message handled correctly without the hidden window? https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/widget/src/windows/nsWindow.cpp#4860
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #20) > Is WM_POWERBROADCAST message handled correctly without the hidden window? > https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/widget/src/windows/nsWindow. > cpp#4860 It is not handled. The comments there suggest this code is to prevent duplicate messages, but the code in the case block for 'wake' appears to is written such that the wake notification will be sent multiple times anyway (for all three message types), as the documentation for the WM_POWERBROADCAST message suggests that several of the PBT_APMRESUME* messages can be sent in sequence. You could handle this by caching the sleep/wake state in a static variable, or switching to using an event for notification instead of an observer.
Actually, the addon-sdk has multiple use cases for which we depend on the hidden window at the moment. In particular, we use the hidden window as a way to load a 'background DOM' (a DOM that is independent of the lifetime of any particular window). For a full overview of these use cases, see: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/background-window Now, the hidden window hasn't been a particularly good solution to our problem (in particular, at least one add-on that was approved by AMO completely replaced the document loaded in the hidden window, thus unloading any documents that we had loaded on it previously), so I'm all for getting rid of it. However, we can't do so without at least providing an alternative for what we want to do, or we could be faced with major breakage throughout the add-on SDK. For most of our use cases, we don't really need DOM access, and all we really need is a 'background sandbox' (a sandbox that is independent of the lifetime of any particular window). This should be relatively simple to implement. However, for at least some use cases, we still need a 'background DOM'. I imagine this would be implemented as a <browser> element that isn't associated with any particular window. I have no idea how hard something like that would be, but I think it's safe to say that it would take a significant amount of time. (In reply to Dan M from comment #0) > I believe Hidden Window is used only to act as a parent for otherwise > parentless > dialogs, and it's a bad parent. It should be possible now to remove it from > the > process of opening parentless windows entirely (now that task/bug 67368 is > done). > > This is important for embedding, since it looks like we'll never be able to > guarantee proper parents for all dialogs. And since without this change, > that > implies a dependency on Hidden Window, which is missing from embedded builds. > > (Hidden Window can't be removed from the Macintosh build, since there it > serves a > second purpose of holding the menubar when no visible window is present.)
We've since added several uses of the hidden window: - PageThumbs.jsm uses it to create canvas elements - mozmill and peptest use it for something - FrameWorker.jsm uses it to access window.* APIs for its sandbox - toolkit/identity/Sandbox.jsm uses it to provide generic "hidden iframe" functionality We'd need to find alternative solutions for these users before any progress can be made here.
mfinkle notes that the hidden window adds half a meg to Fennec's heap, and about 300msec to our startup profile. If we can't kill it for Gecko as a whole, we'd certainly be happy to kill it just for Fennec.
It isn't hard to remove the hidden window and can be done on all non-Mac platforms fairly easily. Unfortunately, there's been a significant increase in the number of places were people have been using the hidden window. Fortunately, I believe bug 565388 has now given us a way to make hidden documents without the need for the hidden window, so we should be able to convert some of these uses.
Also bug 846906.
None of those consumers should be affecting Fennec's startup flow -- we would regard that as a bug -- or perhaps even affecting Fennec at all. Is it possible to get an updated patch that either rips HW out, or makes it lazy, so we can assess on Fennec regardless of failures?
Summary: rip Hidden Window out of Linux and Windows builds → Remove Hidden Window from Linux, Android, and Windows builds
Android is covered by bug 681733.
See Also: → bug 681733
Summary: Remove Hidden Window from Linux, Android, and Windows builds → Remove Hidden Window from Linux and Windows builds
Assignee: enndeakin → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.