wine/gecko
0
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine-gecko.git synced 2024-09-13 09:24:08 -07:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
92,204 Commits 1 Branch 166 Tags 1.2 GiB
95f8a3cace
Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Masatoshi Kimura
f1d328b350 Bug 721569 - Tests. r=sicking 
--HG--
rename : content/base/test/test_blobbuilder.html => content/base/test/test_blobconstructor.html
 2012-03-12 21:45:00 -07:00
Dão Gottwald
b19ddf167c Bug 725289 followup, replace remaining mozSlize with slice 2012-02-16 12:43:08 +01:00
Matthew Schranz
87bb64c61e Bug 725289 - Removed moz prefix in Blob.mozSlice. r=sicking 
--HG--
rename : dom/workers/test/fileReadMozSlice_worker.js => dom/workers/test/fileReadSlice_worker.js
rename : dom/workers/test/fileMozSlice_worker.js => dom/workers/test/fileSlice_worker.js
rename : dom/workers/test/test_fileReadMozSlice.xul => dom/workers/test/test_fileReadSlice.xul
rename : dom/workers/test/test_fileMozSlice.xul => dom/workers/test/test_fileSlice.xul
 2012-02-16 11:22:25 +01:00
Jonas Sicking
0103221c13 Bug 669433 Part 3: Make first argument to Blob.slice optional and defaulting to 0. r=khuey 2011-07-11 19:41:55 -07:00
Jonas Sicking
08ce29756c Bug 649150: Make sure that all blobs and files sent using FormData have a filename in the encoded submission. r=mounir 2011-06-29 11:03:36 -07:00
Kyle Huey
601d68ae79 Bug 648997: Implement BlobBuilder spec as MozBlobBuilder. r=sicking. 
Note that there is one key difference between this implementation and the spec.  In this patch MozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type"); returns a Blob and clears the MozBlobBuilder.  In the spec the BlobBuilder is not cleared.  Thus,

let bb = new MozBlobBuilder();
MozBlobBuilder.append("foo");
let blob1 = MozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type");
// blob1 contains "foo"
MozBlobBuilder.append("bar");
let blob2 = MozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type");
// blob2 contains "bar", the spec says it should contain "foobar".

IMO, the spec behavior optimizes for the wrong case.  BlobBuilder will probably be used mostly as a one-shot API.  Additionally, the spec requires the BlobBuilder to hang on to potentially large amounts of memory between the getBlob() call and when the BlobBuilder is GCd.

These issues have been raised on the listserv.
 2011-05-20 10:18:45 -07:00
Kyle Huey
0018d52058 Backed out changeset b8404a1d3153 2011-05-20 17:00:13 -07:00
Kyle Huey
7da7ee7e4b Bug 648997: Implement BlobBuilder spec as mozBlobBuilder. r=sicking. 
Note that there is one key difference between this implementation and the spec.  In this patch mozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type"); returns a Blob and clears the mozBlobBuilder.  In the spec the BlobBuilder is not cleared.  Thus,

let bb = new mozBlobBuilder();
mozBlobBuilder.append("foo");
let blob1 = mozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type");
// blob1 contains "foo"
mozBlobBuilder.append("bar");
let blob2 = mozBlobBuilder.getBlob("content/type");
// blob2 contains "bar", the spec says it should contain "foobar".

IMO, the spec behavior optimizes for the wrong case.  BlobBuilder will probably be used mostly as a one-shot API.  Additionally, the spec requires the BlobBuilder to hang on to potentially large amounts of memory between the getBlob() call and when the BlobBuilder is GCd.

These issues have been raised on the listserv.
 2011-05-20 10:18:45 -07:00