XUL Version of Most Frequently Reported Bugs Page Available
Friday December 6th, 2002
A XUL version of the Bugzilla duplicates report that doesn't require you to mess with your security settings is now available. Using a split-pane interface similiar to the one found in Mail & Newsgroups, the report not only lists the most frequently reported bugs but also supports updating the view of the data on the fly. A XUL-enabled browser is required and you'll need to grant the script enhanced privileges for it to work. The data can take a few seconds to load, so be patient if nothing seems to be happening at first. See the newsgroup message for more details.
Full Article...
This is a great demo of how XUL can make a Web-based tool much more effective. The ability to add and remove columns and quickly sort the different columns without having to hit the server again is great. I can't wait for more of these XUL tools!
--Asa
can we acheive the same results (client-side data manipulation) without XUL ?
"can we acheive the same results (client-side data manipulation) without XUL ?"
Sure. Go do it. It means you have to write a bunch of code that's already been written if you use XUL. You could write it all in DHTML but why write all the JS necessary to resort columns and other data manipulation and presentation when the XUL column sorting and other functionality is already written for you. XUL saves a lot of work and provides something that has a more "solid" feel than most DHTML I've seen.
--Asa
'Answer "Yes" when your browser asks you if you want to grant the script enhanced privileges'
Hmmm... I answered "No". How do I know what the actual consequences of answering "Yes" would be?
What could such a script actually do? Write data to my disk? Read data from my disk? Send that data somewhere?
How do I know which scripts to trust?
In this case it uses the RDF api to do it's magic. Normally you would click No to such request. It depend on how much you trust that 3rd party. Yes it does allow disk access. Read this table [1] to find out more. Basically don't click yes unless you trust them as much as you trust the mozilla addons. In this case they use UniversalXPConnect.
[1] <http://books.mozdev.org/chapters/ch12.html#77022>
The third party I was supposed to judge the trustability of, was AOL (according to the dialog box). I'm not sure I could trust AOL to do _anything_. Yes, there was no reason for me to suppose anything other than that script could do anything. How could I know otherwise?
I clicked on the check box that said something like "remember my descision", and I was wondering how to undo that?
Locate the following two lines in your prefs.js while your browser is closed and delete them:
user_pref("capability.principal.certificate.p0.granted", "UniversalXPConnect");
user_pref("capability.principal.certificate.p0.id", "72:39:8D:54:A7:8C:17:90:37:8B:D3:7D:7D:0C:87:C5:C9:C4:55:E1");
Is there no way to access it in the security preferences?
It would be even more useful if one could filter out some components and filter out the fixed ones. Searching for anything inside the summary would also be very nice.
is it just me or why doesn't it work?
I get the page, but I'm never asked for any priviliges and all
the columns remain empty.
Reload a couple times. I had the same problem.
Fantastic too.. But, seeing as how it's a tool for using the Bugzilla database, doesn't it seem better to sign the script as "mozilla.org" Instead of "AOL"?
Certificates trusted by the root CAs are expensive. Myk borrowed one from AOL.
Gerv
Why does this page need to be signed? It originates from mozilla.org and only accesses data from mozilla.org.
The same thing could be done without signing the script using XML/CSS/DOM (although not as easily and the performance would not event be close).
It apparently saves your configuration (column order etc.) on your hard disk so it stays the same from session to session.
| 
