Closed
Bug 920377
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Get rid of legacy event class names (ns*Event)
Categories
(Core :: Widget, defect)
Core
Widget
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla27
People
(Reporter: masayuki, Assigned: masayuki)
References
Details
Attachments
(33 files, 3 obsolete files)
No description provided.
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → masayuki
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [leave open]
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #809687 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #810478 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #809717 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #810479 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #809718 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #810480 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810481 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810482 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810483 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810484 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810485 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810486 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810487 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810488 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810489 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810490 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #810491 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•11 years ago
|
||
I'll create other patches...
Attachment #810492 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #810478 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810479 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810480 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810481 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810482 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810483 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810484 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810485 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810486 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810487 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810488 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Comment on attachment 810489 [details] [diff] [review] part.12 Get rid of nsScriptErrorEvent Review of attachment 810489 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: dom/indexedDB/IDBRequest.cpp @@ +39,5 @@ > } // anonymous namespace > > USING_INDEXEDDB_NAMESPACE > using mozilla::dom::OwningIDBObjectStoreOrIDBIndexOrIDBCursor; > +using mozilla::InternalScriptErrorEvent; "using namespace mozilla;" instead.
Attachment #810489 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810490 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810491 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #810492 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b825037b2d43 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f9a539f98ccc https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1ba8d22427b0 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5c6b7f254a3b https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7fc126f540f8 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/78f0a1cb042e https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/99e55a7040fa https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/103d145e68c0 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/65a887bb7f11 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/bd82d2c60f46 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/299f2671ffc5 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/45f2e3fce2c1 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/fe2419c32ee7 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/46cb542ac785 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/bbdaf3ec9aae
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b825037b2d43 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f9a539f98ccc https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1ba8d22427b0 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5c6b7f254a3b https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7fc126f540f8 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/78f0a1cb042e https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/99e55a7040fa https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/103d145e68c0 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/65a887bb7f11 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bd82d2c60f46 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/299f2671ffc5 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/45f2e3fce2c1 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/fe2419c32ee7 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/46cb542ac785 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bbdaf3ec9aae
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811598 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811599 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811600 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811601 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811602 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811603 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811604 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•11 years ago
|
||
The name, nsQueryContentEventResult, is now strange, though.
Attachment #811606 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811609 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•11 years ago
|
||
roc: please ignore the new XXX comment. smaug: Could you check the XXX comment? If it's a bug or you have no idea for them for now, I'll file a bug for it. Otherwise, I'll remove the comment from this patch. According to the DOM Events spec, I think that the activate event should be dispatched as trusted event even if it's caused by an untrusted left click event. However, I'm not sure if DOMActivate is fired on other browsers too. If this is same behavior as other browsers, we shouldn't change it, though. Do you know this? If you don't know, I'll research other browsers' behavior.
Attachment #811611 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #811611 -
Flags: feedback?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•11 years ago
|
||
roc: Please ignore the new XXX comments. smaug: I found that some DOM event constructors don't use the most subclass for its argument. I think that we should change them with filing another bug. How about you?
Attachment #811612 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #811612 -
Flags: feedback?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 33•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811613 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 34•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #811614 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•11 years ago
|
||
The remaining events are: nsEvent, nsGUIEvent, nsMouseEvent and mozilla::WheelEvent. The former 3 events are used in a lot of places, therefore, I'll land them separately later. If I rename mozilla::WheelEvent now, I'll break a patch which I'm reviewing. I'll work on this after the patch is landed (I hope it's soon).
Attachment #811615 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #811598 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811599 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811600 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811601 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811602 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811603 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811604 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811606 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811609 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811611 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811612 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811614 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811615 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #811613 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4665d96e7f1a https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d2f6e4dd2f91 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f94d70152968 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/3cef286bd24f https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2e92ba62e3e6 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d04a5b8e1499 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d569f145443d https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d0b1a13f856d https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/43bc4b6c0535 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5f1f90c96c91 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e88b33939f50 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d3a3d276eb33 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/94b92dd29c9f https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/58a39673d3d7 landed without the new XXX comments.
Assignee | ||
Comment 37•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #812583 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 38•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #812584 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Comment 39•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4665d96e7f1a https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d2f6e4dd2f91 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f94d70152968 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3cef286bd24f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2e92ba62e3e6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d04a5b8e1499 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d569f145443d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d0b1a13f856d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/43bc4b6c0535 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5f1f90c96c91 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e88b33939f50 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3a3d276eb33 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/94b92dd29c9f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/58a39673d3d7
Attachment #812583 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Attachment #812584 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 40•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #812937 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #812937 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2b65d2f636a6 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f7b6f1ec30ee
Comment 42•11 years ago
|
||
/home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp:1581:37: error: member access into incomplete type 'nsIContent' nsIFrame* frame = mDragPopup->GetPrimaryFrame(); ^ /home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/../xpwidgets/nsBaseDragService.h:22:7: note: forward declaration of 'nsIContent' class nsIContent; ^
Comment 43•11 years ago
|
||
diff --git a/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp b/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp index b00b79e033ea..423dd09ca3e3 100644 --- a/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp +++ b/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ #include "nsViewManager.h" #include "nsIFrame.h" #include "nsGtkUtils.h" +#include "nsIContent.h" + // This sets how opaque the drag image is #define DRAG_IMAGE_ALPHA_LEVEL 0.5
Assignee | ||
Comment 44•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/50400711c347
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Octoploid from comment #42) > /home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp:1581:37: error: > member access into incomplete type 'nsIContent' > nsIFrame* frame = mDragPopup->GetPrimaryFrame(); > ^ > /home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/../xpwidgets/nsBaseDragService.h:22: > 7: note: forward declaration of 'nsIContent' > class nsIContent; > ^ What's your environment? No environments in tinderbox don't fail to build it.
Comment 46•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masayuki Nakano (:masayuki) (Mozilla Japan) from comment #45) > (In reply to Octoploid from comment #42) > > /home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/nsDragService.cpp:1581:37: error: > > member access into incomplete type 'nsIContent' > > nsIFrame* frame = mDragPopup->GetPrimaryFrame(); > > ^ > > /home/markus/mozilla-central/widget/gtk/../xpwidgets/nsBaseDragService.h:22: > > 7: note: forward declaration of 'nsIContent' > > class nsIContent; > > ^ > > What's your environment? No environments in tinderbox don't fail to build it. Linux x86_64, clang trunk.
Comment 47•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2b65d2f636a6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f7b6f1ec30ee https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/50400711c347
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [leave open]
Attachment #815231 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 49•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0d275749311e
Comment 50•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0d275749311e
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla27
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #811611 -
Flags: feedback?(bugs)
Comment 51•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 811612 [details] [diff] [review] part.26 Get rid of nsInputEvent This all has landed. Not sure feedback is needed.
Attachment #811612 -
Flags: feedback?(bugs)
Comment 52•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masayuki Nakano (:masayuki) (Mozilla Japan) from comment #32) > Created attachment 811612 [details] [diff] [review] > smaug: I found that some DOM event constructors don't use the most subclass > for its argument. I think that we should change them with filing another > bug. How about you? Sounds good.
Comment 53•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masayuki Nakano (:masayuki) (Mozilla Japan) from comment #31) > smaug: Could you check the XXX comment? If it's a bug or you have no idea > for them for now, I'll file a bug for it. Otherwise, I'll remove the comment > from this patch. File a bug. Not sure what behavior we want there. > However, I'm not sure if DOMActivate is fired on other browsers too. If this > is same behavior as other browsers, we shouldn't change it, though. Do you > know this? If you don't know, I'll research other browsers' behavior. DOMActivate is a legacy thing from old versions of DOM Events spec. No browser has supported it properly. We should try to remove it at some point (but first warn about us of it).
Assignee | ||
Comment 54•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #52) > (In reply to Masayuki Nakano (:masayuki) (Mozilla Japan) from comment #32) > > Created attachment 811612 [details] [diff] [review] > > smaug: I found that some DOM event constructors don't use the most subclass > > for its argument. I think that we should change them with filing another > > bug. How about you? > Sounds good. I did it at bug 920425 :-) (In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #53) > (In reply to Masayuki Nakano (:masayuki) (Mozilla Japan) from comment #31) > > > smaug: Could you check the XXX comment? If it's a bug or you have no idea > > for them for now, I'll file a bug for it. Otherwise, I'll remove the comment > > from this patch. > File a bug. Not sure what behavior we want there. Bug 930843 > > However, I'm not sure if DOMActivate is fired on other browsers too. If this > > is same behavior as other browsers, we shouldn't change it, though. Do you > > know this? If you don't know, I'll research other browsers' behavior. > DOMActivate is a legacy thing from old versions of DOM Events spec. > No browser has supported it properly. We should try to remove it at some > point > (but first warn about us of it). Hmm, I'm afraid to remove it... Especially, I think that this event doesn't harm performance.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•