3 ms·

is it a true webextension? i.e. will it work on firefox? ...or was the firefox quantum move a failure?

by gcbw2 9y ago

lucideer 9y ago
This might work on Firefox, but I doubt it, given it extends Chrome Dev Tools and Firefox doesn't have Chrome Dev Tools, it has its own very different dev tools. I'm not sure what you mean by a "true" WebExtension; Firefox and Chrome addons are two types of webextension. They have a lot of compatibilities and generally share the same APIs on shared features, but each also has its own extra, unique features that will likely never be supported by the other. > was the firefox quantum move a failure? If you're choosing to define "failure" as not changing Firefox entirely to be a carbon copy of Chrome, then yes. Otherwise, no.
- pilagod 9y ago
  Really appreciate your detailed information. I'm not familiar with Firefox extension system, and I really learn a lot from your reply, thanks :)))) Maybe its time for me to study Firefox devtools and to find if there are something interesting to do :p
  - lucideer 9y ago
    Firefox recently deprecated their entire legacy extension system, in favour of a new, more secure system based on Chrome's extension system, and also on the W3C's draft spec[0] This means that many things should be identical between them: including but not limited to the packaging format, manifest format, security model, and the basic APIs for simple common browser features like tabs, page loads, network connections, etc. which gives you a very high compatibility surface area. Naturally, APIs for any innovative features either browser have will be unique to that browser. e.g. Firefox has unique APIs for it's Container system, and it's Sidebar. I guess Chrome has some unique features too. [0] https://browserext.github.io/browserext/ https://browserext.github.io/browserext/
    - pilagod 9y ago
      This is so impressive. These insights are really informative and helpful. I have much more concepts of these two browser after reading your reply. Really thanks for your sharing and amazing effort :)
pilagod 9y ago
I only focus on Chrome so far and haven't do much survey to the entension sysytem of Firefox. Integrate with Firefox could be a next challenge to move on
- chucksmash 9y ago
  Another reply touched on the possible differences in extending devtools, I can't speak to that. I've built several extensions now that worked seamlessly in both Firefox and Chrome. Firefox exposes a `chrome` object that very nearly matches the Chrome extension API and a `browser` object that goes beyond it (e.g. Promise-based async handling instead of callbacks, some additional functionality). The only incompatibility between the two that I've specifically come across is that Firefox doesn't allow background pages to be specified as persistent. Otherwise if you're doing fairly standard stuff with content scripts, background scripts, browser actions and page actions everything should Just Work.

is it a true webextension? i.e. will it work on firefox? ...or was the firefox quantum move a failure?

by gcbw2 9y ago

is it a true webextension? i.e. will it work on firefox? ...or was the firefox quantum move a failure?

This might work on Firefox, but I doubt it, given it extends Chrome Dev Tools and Firefox doesn't have Chrome Dev Tools, it has its own very different dev tools. I'm not sure what you mean by a "true" WebExtension; Firefox and Chrome addons are two types of webextension. They have a lot of compatibilities and generally share the same APIs on shared features, but each also has its own extra, unique features that will likely never be supported by the other. > was the firefox quantum move a failure? If you're choosing to define "failure" as not changing Firefox entirely to be a carbon copy of Chrome, then yes. Otherwise, no.

pilagod 9y ago
Really appreciate your detailed information. I'm not familiar with Firefox extension system, and I really learn a lot from your reply, thanks :)))) Maybe its time for me to study Firefox devtools and to find if there are something interesting to do :p
- lucideer 9y ago
  Firefox recently deprecated their entire legacy extension system, in favour of a new, more secure system based on Chrome's extension system, and also on the W3C's draft spec[0] This means that many things should be identical between them: including but not limited to the packaging format, manifest format, security model, and the basic APIs for simple common browser features like tabs, page loads, network connections, etc. which gives you a very high compatibility surface area. Naturally, APIs for any innovative features either browser have will be unique to that browser. e.g. Firefox has unique APIs for it's Container system, and it's Sidebar. I guess Chrome has some unique features too. [0] https://browserext.github.io/browserext/ https://browserext.github.io/browserext/
  - pilagod 9y ago
    This is so impressive. These insights are really informative and helpful. I have much more concepts of these two browser after reading your reply. Really thanks for your sharing and amazing effort :)

pilagod 9y ago

I only focus on Chrome so far and haven't do much survey to the entension sysytem of Firefox. Integrate with Firefox could be a next challenge to move on

chucksmash 9y ago
Another reply touched on the possible differences in extending devtools, I can't speak to that. I've built several extensions now that worked seamlessly in both Firefox and Chrome. Firefox exposes a `chrome` object that very nearly matches the Chrome extension API and a `browser` object that goes beyond it (e.g. Promise-based async handling instead of callbacks, some additional functionality). The only incompatibility between the two that I've specifically come across is that Firefox doesn't allow background pages to be specified as persistent. Otherwise if you're doing fairly standard stuff with content scripts, background scripts, browser actions and page actions everything should Just Work.