Archive for July 14th, 2011

According to Mark Finkle, who comments Daniel Glazman's reply to Wladimir Palant (and the discussions goes back many hops yet)

[...] there are two classes of binary XPCOM components:

  1. XPCOM wrappers around 3rd-party binary libraries: We use this model for exposing external binary functionality into JavaScript so add-ons and applications can access the libraries. Using js-ctypes should provide a simple, non-breaking way to expose the libraries. You create a simple JavaScript wrapper in a JavaScript XPCOM component. We need more examples of using js-ctypes to do this, but it works.
  2. Pure binary XPCOM components built only using the Mozilla platform: Sometimes the functionality you want to expose is actually locked away in the Mozilla platform itself. Maybe there is no public nsIXxx interface or the existing interface has a [noscript] attribute on a property of method. This model shouldn’t be required anymore, in my opinion. Mozilla is pushing JavaScript based components and we should be exposing as much as possible to chrome JavaScript. I would encourage add-on developers to file bugs and lobby to expose binary-only parts of the Mozilla platform to chrome JavaScript.

I fully subscribe to Mark's opinion about the second category, but unfortunately this is not just as simple as removing the [noscript] flag from interesting APIs (and introducing some wrapper types to make it possible).

What about subclassing a platform component in JavaScript? Of course you cannot as long as its interface expose any [noscript] member, but you cannot either if it happens to be marked as thread safe. That's the case of the DNS Service, which can be called from any thread. I've considered wrapping it in order to satisfy a strict requirement of ABE's (intercepting HTTP requests after DNS resolution but before any data is sent to the web server) in a less hackish way than today, but this would currently require building a XPCOM binary for each supported native platform. That's a trouble I'd gladly spare myself, and Mozilla's making it unsustainable anyway. So, does Mark's statement imply that the relatively recent ban on multi-threaded JavaScript might be reconsidered? Is this even possible in this brave JSCompartment new world?

Bad Behavior has blocked 924 access attempts in the last 7 days.