Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion bugzilla.mozilla.org improvements
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Andrew Sutherland  
View profile  
 More options Jun 12 2009, 10:22 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Andrew Sutherland <sombr...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:22:43 -0700
Local: Fri, Jun 12 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: bugzilla.mozilla.org improvements
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 06/12/2009 04:35 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> I can't promise a timeframe by which the changes will be available. My
> aim is, for non-b.m.o.-specific changes, to get them into the Bugzilla
> trunk and have them flow down to b.m.o. from there. And so it is
> dependent on Bugzilla release schedules and b.m.o. upgrades, which are
> themselves dependent on our release cycles and on IT time.

Given that you will be doing things the right way with all the latency
that implies, I think the best thing is to focus on making bugzilla
something that people can easily experiment with and hack on.

As Axel suggests, I think this translates into making as much as
possible have a JSON API, and then having some documentation and
examples.  Right now you can do/get a lot using XML (and some via JS),
but because of cross-site restrictions[1], this leaves you needing to
either operate with chrome privileges or have your server do a mod_proxy
trick.

While I think there are serious workflow issues in bugzilla that need to
be dealt with, I think it's a better idea to be able to prototype
workflow solutions and use them than to have to develop them in
comparative isolation and have to go through a release cycle to be able
to see the results.  Things that require new fields or other constructs
in bugzilla could be 'worked around' in prototypes by using a CouchDB
instance to store the meta-data, for example.

 From what I can see, bugzilla is already pretty close to having a
usable remote API, so it seems like a beneficial initial strategy...

Andrew

1: Grepping bugzilla trunk, I saw no mention of the
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header that would allow cross-site XHR in FF
3.5, and a quick check against bmo using "wget --server-response" did
not show the header being introduced by the server either.  Just having
the server enable the header is probably a very wrong thing because of
the potential horrible cross-site hacks.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google