Bug 96767 proposes to determine the available glyphs in a font. Since this can be time/CPU expensive it would be good to store the results so they could be used during later runs without the calculation penalty. This information does not seem to fit well into preferences so perhaps it should have its own file.

Ah, there this bug is! Feel free to cc: me any time. More soon on the patch. /be

Shaver wondered whether we might use this db for the XPCOM registry, too. Cc'ing him. /be

Comment on attachment 47601 [details] [diff] [review] patch; sample usage of nsFontCatalogFile (demo only) I dislike using references for out params (non-const refs), because they make the call site's side effects harder to see than if the caller must use & to pass an address. Otherwise, looks great -- should I review the main patch? Sorry I've been swamped by 0.9.5 work. /be

okay, I will change to from char*& to char**. Since the tree will be closed for a few days I'd like to discuss this with shaver before checking in.

Updated the GetNextElement() method to tell caller how big a buffer is needed (if current buffer is too small). GetNextElement() now returns: a positive if name and value gotten 0 if end of file a negative number on error if (return_val > -NVPDB_MIN_BUFLEN) return_val is an error code else return_val is the needed buffer size

added comments re: implementing the code to re-get the element if it is larger than the buffer

Comment on attachment 58359 [details] [diff] [review] patch; additional comments, same code as previous /r=yokoyama

I was building with the patch from bug 100570, while compiling nsNameValuePairDB.o, i got the following error: In method `PRBool nsNameValuePairDB::OpenForRead(const char *)': 350: jump to label `OpenForRead_Error' 330: from here 339: crosses initialization of `class nsCOMPtr<nsILocalFile> local_file' 332: crosses initialization of `class nsCAutoString name simply move the code in OpenForRead_Error into the block calling corresponding goto solves this. is my c++ too old? it's gcc 2.95.3

your compilier is fine. this version of the code needs attention I'v been working on it in bug 100570

slight improvment to GetNextElement

I need to check this will compile on Redhat 6.2

this was implemented in bug 116149 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 116149 ***

Verifying as dupe, please re-open if someone disagrees.