Alarm API - Follow-up fix for bug 776785 (better to use long in IDL)

RESOLVED WONTFIX

Status

()

Core
DOM: Device Interfaces
RESOLVED WONTFIX
6 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: Gene Lian (I already quit Mozilla), Assigned: Gene Lian (I already quit Mozilla))

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Blocks: 776758
Component: Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) → DOM: Device Interfaces
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
Created attachment 648591 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Hi Justin again :)

According to Ms2ger's saying, it seems better to use |long|s in IDL files? This follow-up addresses this issue. As your discover, that's also confusing to me that the existing codes are using both |long|s and |PRInt32|, but it seems using |long|s is in the majority in dom/. So let's follow the convention. ;)

Thanks for your review again (and check-in). :) It was my bad to do the extra changes in the IDL.
Assignee: nobody → clian
Attachment #648591 - Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug)
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite-
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Blocks: 776785
No longer blocks: 776758
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Summary: Alarm API - Follow-up fix for bug 776758 (better to use long in IDL) → Alarm API - Follow-up fix for bug 776785 (better to use long in IDL)
(Assignee)

Comment 2

6 years ago
Created attachment 648593 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Ah, sorry for typing the wrong title. Please see comment #1 for the notes.
Attachment #648591 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #648591 - Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug)
Attachment #648593 - Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug)
> It was my bad to do the extra changes in the IDL.

No, I should have caught it in the review.

I'm not actually sure what we should do here.  This patch is probably correct, but I've posted to dev-platform for clarification.  Once we figure things out there, we can decide what to do with this patch.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/ORQNJ-z9log
Comment on attachment 648593 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Based on the discussion on the mailing list, I think the consensus was against deprecating PRInt32 inside XPIDL in favor of long.  So I'm clearing the r? on this patch.

Gene, if you personally prefer long, r=me on the patch; just let me know and I'll push it for you.
Attachment #648593 - Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug)
(Assignee)

Comment 5

6 years ago
(In reply to Justin Lebar [:jlebar] from comment #4)
> Comment on attachment 648593 [details] [diff] [review]
> Patch
> 
> Based on the discussion on the mailing list, I think the consensus was
> against deprecating PRInt32 inside XPIDL in favor of long.  So I'm clearing
> the r? on this patch.

I'm kind of confused about the phrase here. You mean 

against deprecating (v.) PRInt32
or 
against deprecating (adj.) PRInt32

> 
> Gene, if you personally prefer long, r=me on the patch; just let me know and
> I'll push it for you.

No worries! If the PRInt32 is better to use in theory, I'm definitely OK with it! :) So directly close this issue?
"deprecating" is a gerund and thus a noun.  I'm not sure what you mean.  :)

> No worries! If the PRInt32 is better to use in theory, I'm definitely OK with it! :)

Basically, I prefer PRInt32, Ms2ger prefers long, and the mailing list did not seem to think that PRInt32 was so bad that you can't use it.  So whatever you prefer (closing this bug or checking it in) is fine with me.
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
I think you mean WONTFIX?
Resolution: FIXED → WONTFIX
(Assignee)

Comment 8

6 years ago
(In reply to Justin Lebar [:jlebar] from comment #7)
> I think you mean WONTFIX?

OK. Thank you! :)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.