Issue 653 -Object.defineProperty instead of defineGetter / defineSetter

Issue 653 -Object.defineProperty instead of defineGetter / defineSetter

[tschuster, 2014-06-16 11:11:12]

r? (I never know if this actually send a mail or not)

[Wladimir Palant, 2014-06-23 11:12:39]

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/chro...
File chrome/content/ui/filters-subscriptionactions.js (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/chro...
chrome/content/ui/filters-subscriptionactions.js:239:
Object.defineProperty(this, "_accelMask", {value: result});
I wonder whether not having these properties enumerable will turn into a footgun
at some point...

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
File lib/filterStorage.js (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
lib/filterStorage.js:88: Object.defineProperty(FilterStorage, "sourceFile",
{value: file});
Keep using this rather than FilterStorage here?

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
File lib/io.js (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
lib/io.js:42: Object.defineProperty(IO, "lineBreak", {value: lineBreak});
Use this rather than IO here?

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
File lib/utils.js (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/5055554716172288/diff/5629499534213120/lib/...
lib/utils.js:58: Object.defineProperty(Utils, "isFennec", {value: result});
Use this rather than Utils here? Same goes for the changes below.

[tschuster, 2014-06-26 20:33:10]

I am generally not a big fan of iterating over property names. It seems like for
most objects here we wouldn't do that. Maybe RegExpFilter?

[Wladimir Palant, 2014-06-27 05:50:52]

On 2014/06/26 20:33:10, tschuster wrote:
> I am generally not a big fan of iterating over property names. It seems like
for
> most objects here we wouldn't do that. Maybe RegExpFilter?

No, we generally don't iterate over them - this is something we would use for
debugging.

[tschuster, 2014-06-27 13:31:56]

On 2014/06/27 05:50:52, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> On 2014/06/26 20:33:10, tschuster wrote:
> > I am generally not a big fan of iterating over property names. It seems like
> for
> > most objects here we wouldn't do that. Maybe RegExpFilter?
> 
> No, we generally don't iterate over them - this is something we would use for
> debugging.
In that case Object.getOwnPropertyNames and some proto walking should work.

[tschuster, 2014-07-01 12:09:02]

Hey Wladimir, does that look good to you, now?

[Wladimir Palant, 2014-07-01 12:46:24]

LGTM