Yes, but's quite difficult for normal user know what's the plugin that's
behaving wrong.
Best regards,
On 17/11/17 22:40, Marco Trevisan (Treviño) wrote:
> Thanks for all these reports...
>
> Unfortunately all these issues are unrelated to the shell itself, but I
> please you guys to report these crashes to the extensions authors (as I
> already did in various cases, proposing fixes too).
>
> In fact, what I suspect might have changed is the way gjs (or new mozjs)
> handles the destruction of the actors (as js elements)... Or the shell
> itself might destroy the extension actors at its request.
>
> When this happens, the extensions should block all the async operations
> that are happening, so as a generic rule I guess they should connect to
> the extension actor "destroy" signal and stop all the async operations
> there.
>
Hi,
Yes, but's quite difficult for normal user know what's the plugin that's
behaving wrong.
Best regards,
On 17/11/17 22:40, Marco Trevisan (Treviño) wrote:
> Thanks for all these reports...
>
> Unfortunately all these issues are unrelated to the shell itself, but I
> please you guys to report these crashes to the extensions authors (as I
> already did in various cases, proposing fixes too).
>
> In fact, what I suspect might have changed is the way gjs (or new mozjs)
> handles the destruction of the actors (as js elements)... Or the shell
> itself might destroy the extension actors at its request.
>
> When this happens, the extensions should block all the async operations
> that are happening, so as a generic rule I guess they should connect to
> the extension actor "destroy" signal and stop all the async operations
> there.
>