4 ms·
You did, though. You can just add a WE permission that gives them access to |Components|, like Mozilla's own WEs can already get when they need it. You're choo
by Dagger2 6y ago
You did, though. You can just add a WE permission that gives them access to |Components|, like Mozilla's own WEs can already get when they need it.
You're choosing not to do that.
- Yoric 6y agoContext for readers who may not know: Components = XPCOM. Technically, there were two choices: - killing this off; or - continuing to burn out add-on developers for the sake of add-ons that would progressively become impossible to port.
- eitland 6y agoSince you say "we" elsewhere in this thread: I can understand moving to web extensions, but why has nobody made a programmable way to move the toolbar around? I mean, it cannot be completely impossible to do in a safe way: it exist in Vivaldi?
- eitland 6y ago> I can understand moving to web extensions, but why has nobody made a programmable way to move the toolbar around? That should of course be tab bar. :-/
- Yoric 6y agoThere are many things that WebExtensions could do, if only we found the time to add the necessary APIs. Sadly, Firefox has to race against Chromium with about 1/4 of the developers (I don't remember where I got that estimate from), so we have to focus our efforts. As you can imagine, Mozilla's comparative lack of resources (hence the recent layoffs) won't improve that.
- Dagger2 6y ago"Components" may have been the wrong term. I meant to say that you can give WEs access to something that lets them access the same things that JS running in the browser can. My understanding is that this is currently most easily done via XPCOM interfaces accessible from |Components|, but I wasn't trying to suggest that it needed to be done via XPCOM. Do it using whatever technology the browser itself is using.
- Yoric 6y agoThis is what happens with WebExtensions experiments. Of course, it breaks all the time.