Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Is RequestPolicy Continued Firefox e10s compatible? #828

Closed
Diapolo opened this issue Jan 27, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Is RequestPolicy Continued Firefox e10s compatible? #828

Diapolo opened this issue Jan 27, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@Diapolo
Copy link

Diapolo commented Jan 27, 2017

Easy question, easy answer I guess :).

Is the current release 1.0beta12.4 (the latest offered via Mozilla addon site) Firefox e10s compatible or when will there be a compatible relase?

@metadings
Copy link

metadings commented Feb 1, 2017

No... v1.0.beta12.4 is the current release of RequestPolicy continued.

<em:multiprocessCompatible>false</em:multiprocessCompatible>

However, using javaScript classes Environment, ProcessEnvironment and FrameScriptEnvironment there are already some thoughts in the code of RequestPolicy, which do seem to have Mozilla's Electrolysis (e10s) in mind.

@myrdd
Copy link
Member

myrdd commented Feb 19, 2017

RP is "not really" with e10s. Setting "multiprocessCompatible" activates the so-called shims, which makes an addon not always compatible with e10s. I don't know if RP works with e10s activated, I didn't test that for a while. In any case, because of mozilla's WebExtensions plan, RP needs to be written as a WebExtension, which will make RP e10s-compatible as well.

@jtracey
Copy link

jtracey commented Mar 25, 2017

Just as a point of reference, I've had e10s enabled with RP for months now, with no obvious problems.

@genodeftest
Copy link
Contributor

See also: #610.

@myrdd
Copy link
Member

myrdd commented Jul 7, 2017

I'm currently working on a multiprocess compatibility, i.e., on the migration to WebExtension.
Tracking issues are #610 and #704.
Closing as duplicate.

@shirishag75
Copy link

#610 is no longer valid, please see/track #704 as #610 seems to be closed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants