MozillaZine

Drivers Update

Friday March 29th, 2002

The mozilla.org Status Reports was updated, and included some information on what drivers@mozilla.org are up to, and what's coming up:

"drivers@mozilla.org approved checkins for over 240 bugs this last week. We've taken a few more big-ticket items and have a couple to go. drivers will be ramping down this next week and actively soliciting fixes that we need to branch and have a Release Candidate 1 sometime (hopefully) late next week. We need to get RC1 out there quickly and get feedback on all the changes we've taken since 0.9.9 and at the same time we need the release to stand up so that users will put enough hours on it to give meaningful feedback. Please help us to get the builds into good shape over this next week with particular attention to recent regressions and topcrash+ bugs."


#42 Should I laugh or cry ?

by skeeter

Monday April 1st, 2002 2:05 PM

You are replying to this message

Have you ever read this:

" Post Talkback Please keep your comments friendly! You will be shown your post after submitting it, and it cannot be changed, so make sure you've read it over. "

Or is it only a place holder for you, your comments of

"I again suggest that you cease complaining about it and the Mozilla developers, because it's just making you look silly and ignorant. "

May be the language that you feel is normal, however I don't remember using such about this problem.

It seems that the problem has been solved in that, as you say the Adobe people enabled their plugin to work for Mozilla on Windows and Linux and that it is their fault that they didn't wait. Viewer #1 hardly worked in Windows Mozilla, in Linux zilch. Viewer #2 did work a little better in Windows Mozilla and NS, in Linux zilch. Viewer #3 work very well in Windows Mozilla and NS, in Linux a beta came out for the first time and I have heard that it works quiet well. Now-- as you say there was a developement that is covered in Bug 128508 freeze nsIChannel <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128508> . Here are a few comments from there <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…show_bug.cgi?id=128508#c6>

"3. Lots of the 'dummy channel' implementations stub out methods with NS_OK... Even if they have [out] parameters !! Currently this isn't hurting us (?) but it's just another live land mine that someone will step on one day..."

and here is from Darin a little further down in the thread. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…how_bug.cgi?id=128508#c10>

"3- i believe the dummy nsIChannel impls really only need to impl nsIRequest... they impl nsIChannel for legacy reasons (i.e., loadGroup used to be an attribute on nsIChannel). maybe i can turn those into nsIRequest impls?? i hesitated to do so for fear that someone was accessing the dummy channels via the load group "

How is this related to the bug #133567 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133567> that I am talking about; well it comes from <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…show_bug.cgi?id=133567#c8> it

"ok... I have an idea what happened... The last checkin to that file was done by darin and did, besides other things, do this: (it was for bug 128508 "freeze nsIChannel nsIRequest". Hm, this is the second regression from that checkin that I stumble over...)"

But as you say this whole thing is Adobe's fault and actually it probably is. If you have been over to the bug report you will find that the reporter, that's me, has okayed to mark it fixed.