4 ms·

Can you share some specifics? What exactly have they deprecated?

neurobashing 10y ago
XUL and the entire extensions framework based upon it.
barrkel 10y ago
XUL-based add-ons are being deprecated, and Firefox is adopting the same extension mechanism as Chrome (but with more extension points). That means that add-ons that make more or less drastic changes to the UI will need to be updated, rewritten or abandoned. This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API. And there doesn't seem to be signs of awareness of the risks of destroying an add-ons platform in the Mozilla team's public representations, or in their reactions to bugs reported by some fairly significant add-on authors considering rewriting to the new API.
- gcp 10y ago
  This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API XUL support isn't removed yet, and the bugs and requests for feedback are open and out there. It's also possible to implement new WebExtension APIs (WebExtension Experiments) and inject them as an add-on, in order to test replacement APIs. Most of the major addon authors have engaged there, and many already have a WebExtension port. (For those that had Chrome versions, that should be no surprise - the APIs are essentially compatible) And there doesn't seem to be signs of awareness of the risks of destroying an add-ons platform in the Mozilla team's public representations, or in their reactions to bugs reported by some fairly significant add-on authors considering rewriting to the new API. It's very well understood that some kinds of very invasive add-ons may no longer be possible, and Mozilla is very well aware of that - to some extent it's very much intentional as it's an essential step to improve the quality on browser upgrades and prevent the continuous breakage that exists now, as well as get some things like Sandboxing working at all. The requirements of the most popular add-ons are tracked, and bugs are filed for the missing parts. But it's not because one popular add-on author whines that he should be allowed some random invasive API hooks, that it will be added. (cough DownThemAll cough) It's silly to claim the add-on platform will die out when in reality we now have an extension system that works across all major browsers. At least one of those browsers has a (now essentially compatible) add-on collection that has been gradually dwarfing Firefox's. Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. XUL add-ons and the idea that an addon should interact directly with browser internals have been a stone around Firefox' neck in terms of quality and reliability, and I'll gladly cut the noose.
  - asymmetric 10y ago
    Interesting. Can you provide some links to the DTA situation?
    - gcp 10y ago
      Start here, I guess: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002367.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/... (I've had to troubleshoot issues with Firefoxes being subtly broken due to how DTA injects into the network stack. That made for a rather biased reading of the above thread.)
  - j3097736 10y ago
    The only characteristic unique to firefox is a customizable UI, everything else can be done by existing browsers.
    - abiox 10y ago
      afaik, firefox is an "existing browser"
  - barrkel 10y ago
    Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. Maybe. We'll see. All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago.
    - gcp 10y ago
      All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago. Right, so the only reason why you use Firefox is that you're being held hostage by add-ons. Isn't that terrible? We'd rather make a browser you actually WANT to use and if that requires pouring gasoline over the add-on ecosystem and setting the thing on fire, I'll be first in line to bring the matches.
- AsyncAwait 10y ago
  I agree that the add-on situation is unfortunate, however I fail to see how it maps to something like Rust. The only thing Mozilla does in regards to Rust is pay the core developers. Apart from no longer paying them, there isn't much Mozilla can do to influence Rust - it's a community driven project.

XUL and the entire extensions framework based upon it.

XUL-based add-ons are being deprecated, and Firefox is adopting the same extension mechanism as Chrome (but with more extension points). That means that add-ons that make more or less drastic changes to the UI will need to be updated, rewritten or abandoned. This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API. And there doesn't seem to be signs of awareness of the risks of destroying an add-ons platform in the Mozilla team's public representations, or in their reactions to bugs reported by some fairly significant add-on authors considering rewriting to the new API.

gcp 10y ago
This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API XUL support isn't removed yet, and the bugs and requests for feedback are open and out there. It's also possible to implement new WebExtension APIs (WebExtension Experiments) and inject them as an add-on, in order to test replacement APIs. Most of the major addon authors have engaged there, and many already have a WebExtension port. (For those that had Chrome versions, that should be no surprise - the APIs are essentially compatible) And there doesn't seem to be signs of awareness of the risks of destroying an add-ons platform in the Mozilla team's public representations, or in their reactions to bugs reported by some fairly significant add-on authors considering rewriting to the new API. It's very well understood that some kinds of very invasive add-ons may no longer be possible, and Mozilla is very well aware of that - to some extent it's very much intentional as it's an essential step to improve the quality on browser upgrades and prevent the continuous breakage that exists now, as well as get some things like Sandboxing working at all. The requirements of the most popular add-ons are tracked, and bugs are filed for the missing parts. But it's not because one popular add-on author whines that he should be allowed some random invasive API hooks, that it will be added. (cough DownThemAll cough) It's silly to claim the add-on platform will die out when in reality we now have an extension system that works across all major browsers. At least one of those browsers has a (now essentially compatible) add-on collection that has been gradually dwarfing Firefox's. Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. XUL add-ons and the idea that an addon should interact directly with browser internals have been a stone around Firefox' neck in terms of quality and reliability, and I'll gladly cut the noose.
- asymmetric 10y ago
  Interesting. Can you provide some links to the DTA situation?
  - gcp 10y ago
    Start here, I guess: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002367.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/... (I've had to troubleshoot issues with Firefoxes being subtly broken due to how DTA injects into the network stack. That made for a rather biased reading of the above thread.)
- j3097736 10y ago
  The only characteristic unique to firefox is a customizable UI, everything else can be done by existing browsers.
  - abiox 10y ago
    afaik, firefox is an "existing browser"
- barrkel 10y ago
  Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. Maybe. We'll see. All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago.
  - gcp 10y ago
    All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago. Right, so the only reason why you use Firefox is that you're being held hostage by add-ons. Isn't that terrible? We'd rather make a browser you actually WANT to use and if that requires pouring gasoline over the add-on ecosystem and setting the thing on fire, I'll be first in line to bring the matches.
AsyncAwait 10y ago
I agree that the add-on situation is unfortunate, however I fail to see how it maps to something like Rust. The only thing Mozilla does in regards to Rust is pay the core developers. Apart from no longer paying them, there isn't much Mozilla can do to influence Rust - it's a community driven project.