Status

()

Core
Networking
RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1222829
5 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: keeler, Assigned: keeler)

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [necko-backlog])

Attachments

(1 attachment)

nsIURIChecker is no longer used internally, appears to be undocumented, and as far as I can tell, is not used externally (e.g. in addons). It also has no test coverage: http://people.mozilla.org/~choller/firefox/coverage/mc-coverage-20130120-1d122eaa9070/netwerk/base/src/nsURIChecker.cpp.gcov.html
Created attachment 717243 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

I think I got everything - let me know if there's something I missed.
Assignee: nobody → dkeeler
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #717243 - Flags: review?(bsmith)
Ok - so there are some addons that use it:

FoxyTunes (Firefox max version: 13)
Amazing Media Browser (3.0.*)
Anchorun (2.0.0.*)
Google Bookmarks for Firefox (4.0.*)
GMarks (7.*)
Annotea Ubimarks (3.0.0.*)
Google Shortcuts (12.*)
Deng Google Bookmarks (3.5.*)
Smarky (2.0.0.*)
Visual Bookmarks (2.0.0.*)
kuby (5.*)
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Attachment #717243 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Did a bit more digging:

FoxyTunes - uses binary components, not available for recent firefox versions
Amazing Media Browser - not available on amo
Anchorun - not available
Google Bookmarks for Firefox - looks like this is available (amo says it has 23,659 users)
GMarks - available (31,478 users)
Annotea Ubimarks - not available
Google Shortcuts - available (179,577 users)
Deng Google Bookmarks - not available
Smarky - not available
Visual Bookmarks - not available
kuby - available (1 user)

So it looks like we can't just remove this with no warning.
Options as I see them:
1. Don't remove nsIURIChecker
2. Deprecate nsIURIChecker, get people to stop using it, and eventually remove it
3. Remove nsIURIChecker but provide a js implementation either in-tree or externally that addon writers can use if they really need this functionality
I'm fine with any of those options, probably...
I vote "anything but #3." The point of doing this is to increase productivity, and rewriting this in JS is counter-productive to that goal.
Comment on attachment 717243 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Clearing review request until we decide whether to do this or not.
Attachment #717243 - Flags: review?(bsmith)
Whiteboard: [necko-backlog]
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 2 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Duplicate of bug: 1222829
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.