5 ms·

A funny comment on the post: "BTW, if you really want to show us that you trust this much in these new WebExtensions, the first ones to appear at AMO should be

A funny comment on the post: "BTW, if you really want to show us that you trust this much in these new WebExtensions, the first ones to appear at AMO should be Pocket and Hello. Remove that code from the core Firefox and put it where it always should have been: an extension that anyone interested can easily install." And a more serious comment from a developer of DownThemAll!: "I was thinking of abandoning add-on development for a while now, mostly because of the Walled Garden signing approach that went live, which I strongly objected to and still strongly object to… I might have come to terms with it, once I see it play out in an actual implemention… But “deprecating” XUL-based add-ons with XPCOM access takes the cake. Once that happens, I will abandon ship for sure. Simply because I cannot continue developing most add-ons at all as they will not and cannot fit into any “WebExtensions” API. The flexibility of what XUL-based add-ons can do IS the major selling point of the Firefox add-ons ecosystem and therefore IS one of the last remaining selling points of Firefox itself that isn’t purely ideological. In comparison, the APIs that Chrome and competitors offer, that the Firefox Jetpack/ Add-on SDK offers, are just… toys. To give a little background about myself to show that I’m not just the random hater shooting a drive-by comment: I wrote some more or less successful add-ons in the past, including DownThemAll!, and reviewed many, many add-ons as an AMO volunteer." https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/comment-page-1/#comment-218580 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...

dafrankenstein2 11y ago
or if firefox wants to keep it in the core, they should maintain high attention on Pocket( ensuring there is no security flow)
wvenable 11y ago
I use Tab Mix Plus for multi-row tabs in Firefox. It's so important to how I browse that it's the main reason why I use Firefox. If it goes away, then I have no reason to use Firefox.
- thom_nic 11y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Tab Mix Plus sounds like one of those extensions that might not be doable under the new API... Which would explain why there's no chrome version. Also the main reason why I use Firefox as well... This window has 20 tabs open :)
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Doing research phases I can have 100 tabs open -- although only 30-40 actually fit on the screen at once (3 rows). Even if Tax Mix Plus was ever doable under the new API (and it won't be), somebody has to write it, test it, and maintain it. I'm not confident that will happen. The churn is just tossing out a lot of existing code and might never be replaced. I just turned off automatic updates. It's sad that all good things do eventually come to an end.
- Tobu 11y ago
  Tab Mix Plus is explicitly mentioned as something they'll support: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    The blogpost should have led with that. A lot of the discussion here is based off of people incorrectly assuming addons like that won't work.
    - the8472 11y ago
      That still only covers extentensions that have already been invented. It doesn't solve the problem of letting people tinker to discover the need for a new API in the first place.
      - brighteyes 11y ago
        You can still tinker when building firefox from source. I agree it's not as convenient as the default builds being open to such modding, but that's the point - the default builds should be safer because 99% of users don't tinker.
azakai 11y ago
I think that may be overly pessimistic: The post says they are working to extend WebExtensions in ways to allow addons that currently can't work in the Chrome etc. addon APIs. I'm not sure if that will address that concern, it depends how far they will go with that, but at least it is clear that doing much better than basic WebExtensions/Jetpack/etc. is intended.
- nolok 11y ago
  He is quoting a comment, he's not the author of what you read.
  - azakai 11y ago
    Yes, sorry, I meant the comment was overly pessimistic. I'll edit.
- tn123 11y ago
  Since you're addressing my comment there: I don't think I'm overly pessimistic. Apart from having been in the game since mozilla suite and having experienced a LOT of things that didn't turn out so well, to say the least and keep it polite and curse-word free... The WebExtensions API is supposed to be an intentionally strictly defined API with a limited feature set; that just comes with the territory. It is supposed to give you access to a subset of Firefox features/internals. Compare that to the current extension "API": What Firefox can do, your add-on can do, and a lot of more things as well. You can customize Firefox to the point it really is a new browser (with thinks like Tab Mix Plus, Tree tabs, vimperator/pentadactyl) or just keep it (almost) vanilla, as you please. This is a major plus for users. Sure, for a lot of things the extension team may add a WebExtensions API. But that is limited to what that team deems worthy of their time, deems "useful", and deems "safe". It is no longer up to the add-on developer to decide what they would like to develop, but up to the WebExtensions API gatekeeper team on what they want to allow and what they then prioritize and create the actual APIs. Adding new APIs you may need will require you nag the team about it, though luck if you don't speak any language they understand, tough luck if they don't care or cannot care because their time is not infinite. What makes me even more pessimistic is seeing the Jetpack/Add-on SDK after years of development and how it still only can address only the most basic use cases. The number of SDK-based add-ons, even relatively simple ones, that have to resort to 'require("chrome")' is staggeringly high. If the pace of the Add-on SDK and the stability its API is any indication... Time to look for another browser... Except there isn't any comparable to what Firefox still is right now. And let's not forget: A change like this will break almost all existing add-ons in major ways. Many if not add-ons need to be rewritten in their entirety or at least in major chunks from scratch. Many add-ons will simply not make that huge investment in time required for that and simply die, without readily available replacements and leaving users behind scratching their heads.
jmhain 11y ago
Interesting. DownThemAll is currently the only reason I still use Firefox occasionally.
rcthompson 11y ago
With regard to making the integrated Pocket and Hello features into addons, I think they absolutely should. And I wouldn't even mind if those addons came pre-installed, such that the out-of-the-box experience for the average user is identical, but advanced users can disable or uninstall these addons if they don't want or need them.

dafrankenstein2 11y ago

or if firefox wants to keep it in the core, they should maintain high attention on Pocket( ensuring there is no security flow)

wvenable 11y ago

I use Tab Mix Plus for multi-row tabs in Firefox. It's so important to how I browse that it's the main reason why I use Firefox. If it goes away, then I have no reason to use Firefox.

thom_nic 11y ago
I was thinking the same thing. Tab Mix Plus sounds like one of those extensions that might not be doable under the new API... Which would explain why there's no chrome version. Also the main reason why I use Firefox as well... This window has 20 tabs open :)
- wvenable 11y ago
  Doing research phases I can have 100 tabs open -- although only 30-40 actually fit on the screen at once (3 rows). Even if Tax Mix Plus was ever doable under the new API (and it won't be), somebody has to write it, test it, and maintain it. I'm not confident that will happen. The churn is just tossing out a lot of existing code and might never be replaced. I just turned off automatic updates. It's sad that all good things do eventually come to an end.
Tobu 11y ago
Tab Mix Plus is explicitly mentioned as something they'll support: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs
- brighteyes 11y ago
  The blogpost should have led with that. A lot of the discussion here is based off of people incorrectly assuming addons like that won't work.
  - the8472 11y ago
    That still only covers extentensions that have already been invented. It doesn't solve the problem of letting people tinker to discover the need for a new API in the first place.
    - brighteyes 11y ago
      You can still tinker when building firefox from source. I agree it's not as convenient as the default builds being open to such modding, but that's the point - the default builds should be safer because 99% of users don't tinker.

azakai 11y ago

I think that may be overly pessimistic: The post says they are working to extend WebExtensions in ways to allow addons that currently can't work in the Chrome etc. addon APIs. I'm not sure if that will address that concern, it depends how far they will go with that, but at least it is clear that doing much better than basic WebExtensions/Jetpack/etc. is intended.

nolok 11y ago
He is quoting a comment, he's not the author of what you read.
- azakai 11y ago
  Yes, sorry, I meant the comment was overly pessimistic. I'll edit.
tn123 11y ago
Since you're addressing my comment there: I don't think I'm overly pessimistic. Apart from having been in the game since mozilla suite and having experienced a LOT of things that didn't turn out so well, to say the least and keep it polite and curse-word free... The WebExtensions API is supposed to be an intentionally strictly defined API with a limited feature set; that just comes with the territory. It is supposed to give you access to a subset of Firefox features/internals. Compare that to the current extension "API": What Firefox can do, your add-on can do, and a lot of more things as well. You can customize Firefox to the point it really is a new browser (with thinks like Tab Mix Plus, Tree tabs, vimperator/pentadactyl) or just keep it (almost) vanilla, as you please. This is a major plus for users. Sure, for a lot of things the extension team may add a WebExtensions API. But that is limited to what that team deems worthy of their time, deems "useful", and deems "safe". It is no longer up to the add-on developer to decide what they would like to develop, but up to the WebExtensions API gatekeeper team on what they want to allow and what they then prioritize and create the actual APIs. Adding new APIs you may need will require you nag the team about it, though luck if you don't speak any language they understand, tough luck if they don't care or cannot care because their time is not infinite. What makes me even more pessimistic is seeing the Jetpack/Add-on SDK after years of development and how it still only can address only the most basic use cases. The number of SDK-based add-ons, even relatively simple ones, that have to resort to 'require("chrome")' is staggeringly high. If the pace of the Add-on SDK and the stability its API is any indication... Time to look for another browser... Except there isn't any comparable to what Firefox still is right now. And let's not forget: A change like this will break almost all existing add-ons in major ways. Many if not add-ons need to be rewritten in their entirety or at least in major chunks from scratch. Many add-ons will simply not make that huge investment in time required for that and simply die, without readily available replacements and leaving users behind scratching their heads.

jmhain 11y ago

Interesting. DownThemAll is currently the only reason I still use Firefox occasionally.

rcthompson 11y ago

With regard to making the integrated Pocket and Hello features into addons, I think they absolutely should. And I wouldn't even mind if those addons came pre-installed, such that the out-of-the-box experience for the average user is identical, but advanced users can disable or uninstall these addons if they don't want or need them.