From philip.chee at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 04:14:29 2007 From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:14:29 +0800 Subject: [Flashblock] Flashblock now with InstaBlock[TM] Message-ID: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> Hey guys, I've fixed a long standing bug 12592: As you know we've always needed a short timeout before swapping our placeholder in. All previous attempts to remove the timeout caused the browser to crash. However this timeout allows flash to run briefly and this is particularly noticable on slower machines. It also allows a class of very small flash that contains only a loadURL() command to jump to an interstitial advertisement (usually for a gambling or porn site). I didn't manage to remove the requirement for the timeout. However what I did was, as soon as we got hold of the flash object/embed, to null out all src, data and movie attributes, even before running the showPlaceholder() function. And then to swap these attributes back in when showing back the original flash. According to reports from testers to whom I emailed testing versions, this is working great guns and everybody is as happy as a bunch of clams with this "instant' blocking. So I plan to release new versions of 1.5 and 1.3 next week. But before I do could someone test the latest 1.5.unstable on linux platforms? Thanks. Cheers. Phil From ted at mielczarek.org Sat Mar 10 08:04:36 2007 From: ted at mielczarek.org (Ted Mielczarek) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:04:36 -0500 Subject: [Flashblock] Flashblock now with InstaBlock[TM] In-Reply-To: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> References: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It looks ok on Ubuntu, but I haven't used it heavily. Sounds great, though! -Ted On 3/10/07, Philip Chee wrote: > Hey guys, > > I've fixed a long standing bug 12592: > > > As you know we've always needed a short timeout before > swapping our placeholder in. All previous attempts > to remove the timeout caused the browser to crash. > However this timeout allows flash to run briefly and > this is particularly noticable on slower machines. > It also allows a class of very small flash that contains > only a loadURL() command to jump to an interstitial > advertisement (usually for a gambling or porn site). > > I didn't manage to remove the requirement for the > timeout. However what I did was, as soon as we got > hold of the flash object/embed, to null out all > src, data and movie attributes, even before running > the showPlaceholder() function. And then to swap > these attributes back in when showing back the > original flash. According to reports from testers to > whom I emailed testing versions, this is working > great guns and everybody is as happy as a bunch of > clams with this "instant' blocking. > > So I plan to release new versions of 1.5 and 1.3 next > week. But before I do could someone test the latest > 1.5.unstable on linux platforms? Thanks. > > Cheers. > > Phil > From lorenzo at colitti.com Sat Mar 10 10:59:54 2007 From: lorenzo at colitti.com (Lorenzo Colitti) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:59:54 +0000 Subject: [Flashblock] Flashblock now with InstaBlock[TM] In-Reply-To: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> References: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45F3002A.5080102@colitti.com> Philip Chee wrote: > this is working great guns and everybody is as happy as a bunch of > clams with this "instant' blocking. Great work Phil! Thumbs up :-) > So I plan to release new versions of 1.5 and 1.3 next > week. But before I do could someone test the latest > 1.5.unstable on linux platforms? Thanks. I'll test this on Linux of course, But is it wise to do a release so soon after a core change like this? I think you should make the final call though, since you've been playing with the code much more than I have recently. Cheers, Lorenzo -- Lorenzo Colitti http://www.colitti.com/lorenzo/ From philip.chee at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 11:05:00 2007 From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:05:00 +0800 Subject: [Flashblock] Flashblock now with InstaBlock[TM] In-Reply-To: <45F3002A.5080102@colitti.com> References: <8e8943620703100414g6c6e2a40l6f44c71b7c811b12@mail.gmail.com> <45F3002A.5080102@colitti.com> Message-ID: <8e8943620703101105w1209be20of8ce499d9eed6204@mail.gmail.com> On 11/03/07, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > I'll test this on Linux of course, But is it wise to do a release so > soon after a core change like this? I think you should make the final > call though, since you've been playing with the code much more than I > have recently. I've run it through all my previous test cases and I didn't find any regressions, but perhaps you are right. I'll let it bake for a while. In the meantime I'll see if I can get some guinea pigs in the mozillazine forums to do some beta testing for me. Phil