Closed
Bug 716004
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Traverse nsXBLDocumentInfo less often
Categories
(Core :: XBL, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: smaug, Assigned: smaug)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
patch
|
mccr8
:
review+
jst
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Keep similar behavior to rest of DOM to traverse script objects,
but don't traverse anything else.
If mDocument is in generation, so is then nsXBLDocumentInfo
(owned by xul cache).
Attachment #586508 -
Flags: review?(continuation)
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
Is there some specific reason you are concerned about moving around script traversal or are you just being safe?
The code looks fine to me, but I don't know anything about nsXBLDocumentInfo, so you should get somebody else to confirm that mDocument always holds the nsXBLDocumentInfo alive.
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #586508 -
Flags: review?(continuation) → review+
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
I talked to jst about this a little, and he said that these objects aren't guaranteed to be in the XUL cache. Or rather, they are in the browser as is, but somebody could configure non-browser usage (or something like that?) so they wouldn't be.
Updated•13 years ago
|
Blocks: 698919
Summary: Traverse XBL even less → Traverse nsXBLDocumentInfo less often
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
The objects are in XUL cache if they are in CC generation. This relies on the behavior
of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713865.
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
Is that true even for non-chrome XBL documents? I.e. if a user explicitly enables remote XBL for a given site?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
If those aren't in XUL cache, document's aren't marked to be in CC generation.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•13 years ago
|
||
...see the patch for bug 713865.
Comment 8•13 years ago
|
||
Good point.
Assignee | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #586508 -
Flags: review?(jst)
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #586508 -
Flags: review?(jst) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•13 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•