On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 08:27 -0400, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> I don't have the resources to promise that the javaxpcom will >> work/be >>> maintained so i guess for now we will just continue to bundle the >>> eclipse/mozilla custom built one so any security issues is not >> exposed >>> in the general browser but only in the development tooling >>> where it is less of an issue since it is primarily used to access >>> local sites. >>> >>> /max >> What does this mean for question move VPE on xulrunner 1.9 or not? >> /Maksim Areshkau > That beyo8nd xulrunner 1.9 removing features we depend on we now also > need someone to maintain the xpcom interfaces...afaik ATF did that before. Java XPCOM bridge provided by mozilla, what doing ATF gays - just provided a plugin with this interfaces, if so it's not difficult to do. > Who does it now ? > > /max Almost all xpcom interfaces that used by us has frozen status and shouldn't changed, so this doesn't needed to change something.

From today's N build (N200909010701), ATF is built against XULRunner 1.9

> Hi All, > > From today's N build (N200909010701), ATF is built against XULRunner > 1.9 > and will not work with older versions. > See here http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/atf-dev/msg00600.html > > Is it time for us to move on XR1.9? > do we have a way to fix the missing features in XR1.9 ? I recall last time that drag'n'drop and selection were affected ?

What does ATF do ?

/max

>>> 1.9 >>> and will not work with older versions. >>> See here http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/atf-dev/msg00600.html >>> >>> Is it time for us to move on XR1.9? >>> >>> >> do we have a way to fix the missing features in XR1.9 ? >> I recall last time that drag'n'drop and selection were affected ? >> > DnD has been working normaly, as i remember. > Selection has been affected only on > OSX(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368608) and workaround > exists. > What is that workaround ? I couldn't spot it in the comments. >> What does ATF do ? >> > What does it mean, is it about which functionality have atf? > They also depend on similar features of xulrunner that we do - if they already fixed some thing we can reuse if it makes sense or if they fixed it bad not how to do it. Anyhow, I went back through the archives and found the following issues to be what we have discussed before: 1) The Selection area as described above. If that only affects Mac and there is a maintainable workaround that should be fine.

2) Platform availability - can we get or produce a xulrunner 1.9 binary for all our supported platforms ? x86_64 bit ? Mac Cocoa/Carbon

3) Updatability - will users (of both jboss tools and JBDS) be able to update to xulrunner 1.9 via our updatesite without conflicts to the SWT integration/hook/hack ?

If we can solve/verify these or at least find acceptable workarounds and there isn't any other known problems then lets move to XulRunner 1.9 after M3 have been released. /max

>> Anyhow, I went back through the archives and found the following issues >> to be what we have discussed before: >> >> 1) The Selection area as described above. If that only affects Mac and >> there is a maintainable workaround that should be fine. >> >> > There will be the similar scheme to which we use for drowning resizes > elements now. > "drowning resizes elements" ? You mean not have them show up or ?

>> 2) Platform availability - can we get or produce a xulrunner 1.9 binary >> for all our supported platforms ? x86_64 bit ? Mac Cocoa/Carbon > Mozilla provide support for following platforms linux x86,win32, Mac > i386(I have cheeked work only on carbon, i haven't checked it on cocoa). > For other platforms(linux x64 and windows x64 we can build XR1.9, it's > much ease than build XR1.8. > Also there exists an bug on win x64, that user can't select more then > 677MB of memory when run eclipse x32 and java x32.You can see this > thread(http://www.java-forum.org/ides-und-tools/85846-eclipse-maximal-xmx... > So build of xulrunner for this platform is important. > I actually got some contact me wanting to help out do a Win X64 build for us. Got some docs/links I can send to him or should we just do it over email ?

>> 3) Updatability - will users (of both jboss tools and JBDS) be able to >> update to xulrunner 1.9 via our updatesite without conflicts to the SWT >> integration/hook/hack ? >> > It should work without any problems. > >> If we can solve/verify these or at least find acceptable workarounds and >> there isn't any other known problems then lets move to XulRunner 1.9 >> after M3 have been released. >> Lets discuss it tomorrow (friday) on the call with Denis and Alexey - but from the sound of it we should move up to xulrunner 1.9 for the M4 release.

/max