Comments on: My Dream Way To Write A Firefox Extension http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/ -- aza | ɐzɐ -- Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:42:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Kelvin65 http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-6031 Kelvin65 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:59:40 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-6031 Mark,It's not Google's fault that there's not a proper app. , Mark,It’s not Google’s fault that there’s not a proper app. ,

]]> By: Mike http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-5308 Mike Fri, 01 May 2009 20:01:29 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-5308 The biggest problem in extensions now is their disability to install without relaunching Firefox. I oftenn notice that it's takes too long time for me and that why I install the extencion only when I really really want it. Extensions could be like cookies. Any site should have possibility to install extension to your browser without relaunching browser. And you could allow or don't them to do it. It could completely change the way how sites are built. For example, when you open gmail and allow their extension they could make special panel with a number of unread messages in your browser. They could add some buttons to firefox interface. Maybe it will be look much more like you opening desctop software. Firefox could transform interface from site to site adpting to what they need. The biggest problem in extensions now is their disability to install without relaunching Firefox. I oftenn notice that it’s takes too long time for me and that why I install the extencion only when I really really want it.

Extensions could be like cookies. Any site should have possibility to install extension to your browser without relaunching browser. And you could allow or don’t them to do it.

It could completely change the way how sites are built. For example, when you open gmail and allow their extension they could make special panel with a number of unread messages in your browser. They could add some buttons to firefox interface. Maybe it will be look much more like you opening desctop software. Firefox could transform interface from site to site adpting to what they need.

]]> By: Euge http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4842 Euge Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:47:02 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4842 Maybe it would be great to have an extension IDE or a visual-extension-creator-editor-etc"tor"... I just finished a (2 hours!) GREAT session with Myk Melez and the guys/girls from the design challenge 2009! It was really a Bootcamp! (like the tittle of the session). I hope this will be available in a more "easy" way for the not-so-developer people (some code is always necessarily). Greeting from Argentina! pd:sorry about my english :-) Maybe it would be great to have an extension IDE or a visual-extension-creator-editor-etc”tor”…
I just finished a (2 hours!) GREAT session with Myk Melez and the guys/girls from the design challenge 2009!
It was really a Bootcamp! (like the tittle of the session). I hope this will be available in a more “easy” way for the not-so-developer people (some code is always necessarily).

Greeting from Argentina!

pd:sorry about my english :-)

]]> By: Chris http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4841 Chris Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:52:12 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4841 A rebellious thought. What if the entire chrome was actually a website, e.g. chrome.mozilla.org? The browser would be just a rendering engine, and the first thing it would do when loaded is display http://chrome.mozilla.org which contains the address bar, menus, etc. The actual websites would be something like iFrames inside this chrome. Firefox extension development would then be similar to programming Facebook applications, i.e. they would be hosted on the Mozilla website. You can imagine perhaps having your own chrome at http://chrome.mozilla.org/users/{userid} which could be modified by the user via a web-based front end. Or even creating your own chrome at your own domain! What's more, you could even get a webkit or IE-based browser to display the Firefox chrome just by pointing it to your chrome URL. Any computer you connected to would then have access to your favourites, options etc just by using your chrome - as per Weave, but simpler. A rebellious thought. What if the entire chrome was actually a website, e.g. chrome.mozilla.org? The browser would be just a rendering engine, and the first thing it would do when loaded is display http://chrome.mozilla.org which contains the address bar, menus, etc. The actual websites would be something like iFrames inside this chrome.

Firefox extension development would then be similar to programming Facebook applications, i.e. they would be hosted on the Mozilla website. You can imagine perhaps having your own chrome at http://chrome.mozilla.org/users/{userid} which could be modified by the user via a web-based front end. Or even creating your own chrome at your own domain! What’s more, you could even get a webkit or IE-based browser to display the Firefox chrome just by pointing it to your chrome URL. Any computer you connected to would then have access to your favourites, options etc just by using your chrome - as per Weave, but simpler.

]]> By: Marc Diethelm http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4772 Marc Diethelm Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:09:45 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4772 Mozilla the platform... There have been lots of discussions about this in recent years and the Mozilla team pretty much decided to focus on the browser. Which was probably a good move too. But it also explains why XUL has never been spec'ed, versioned and made complete. IMO that's were the focus, in terms of extension development (application development really), on Gecko should be: Create a version of XUL that lends itself to the building of any app (not only a browser), that provides a consistent layout on different OSs (without CSS hacking). Other things I woud consider very beneficial: an extended FUEL library and jQuery for Gecko (yes!). I'll say it again: XUL 1.0 and jQuery for Gecko!! That's just from the top of my hat, I'm at work.. ;) Mozilla the platform… There have been lots of discussions about this in recent years and the Mozilla team pretty much decided to focus on the browser. Which was probably a good move too. But it also explains why XUL has never been spec’ed, versioned and made complete. IMO that’s were the focus, in terms of extension development (application development really), on Gecko should be: Create a version of XUL that lends itself to the building of any app (not only a browser), that provides a consistent layout on different OSs (without CSS hacking). Other things I woud consider very beneficial: an extended FUEL library and jQuery for Gecko (yes!).

I’ll say it again: XUL 1.0 and jQuery for Gecko!!

That’s just from the top of my hat, I’m at work.. ;)

]]> By: Jonathan Bradley http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4767 Jonathan Bradley Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:48:00 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4767 I would personally like to see a better framework that could integrate with eclipse, dreamweaver, textmate or maybe a visual editor. I would personally like to see a better framework that could integrate with eclipse, dreamweaver, textmate or maybe a visual editor.

]]> By: Dr. Pain http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4761 Dr. Pain Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:57:49 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4761 I'm not sure why you're targeting any sort of "code" as the ideal extension development environment. Most extensions are trying to make the browser/web sites/a particular web site look or behave differently. Some kind of visual editor seems like a more powerful solution -- edit the website (your browser) to your liking and then automatically create the extension that gives you that functionality. Platypus goes a little ways down this road but is limited by using Greasemonkey for implementation. I’m not sure why you’re targeting any sort of “code” as the ideal extension development environment. Most extensions are trying to make the browser/web sites/a particular web site look or behave differently. Some kind of visual editor seems like a more powerful solution — edit the website (your browser) to your liking and then automatically create the extension that gives you that functionality. Platypus goes a little ways down this road but is limited by using Greasemonkey for implementation.

]]> By: Nils Maier http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4760 Nils Maier Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:35:04 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4760 Most extensions are already a combination of javascript + xul + css (and sometimes some xbl). Throw in some dtd/properties files if you want some l10n and you're done. There is only a handful of extensions that actually uses C++. So it is already pretty "webby" on the implementation side. I say the way to go is simply to provide more FUEL-like APIs. Including jquery would be a great thing to do, however it has to be determined how much it might interfere with existing (extension) code. The shared "namespace" is still a major obstacle. Wladimir posted an article about some ways to overcome it recently, and it shows that it's actually still not exactly easy: http://adblockplus.org/blog/avoiding-naming-conflicts-in-overlays As for the packaging part: In my opinion it isn't that hard. Installation manifests and Chrome manifests are fairly well documented on AMO and the actual packaging is as easy as zipping the whole into an archive (or two if you want chrome.jar) There are some issues, but most likely only "advanced" extensions will encounter those. Like window icons must be in chrome/icons and may not be jar'ed. A major area which isn't addressed by your proposal at all is l10n. In conclusion: Seems like a nice idea, however in my opinion the existing extensions "system" should be enhanced before thinking about an "extensions-light" variant (FUEL-like APIs, more documentation especially on how to achieve common tasks). Most extensions are already a combination of javascript + xul + css (and sometimes some xbl).
Throw in some dtd/properties files if you want some l10n and you’re done.
There is only a handful of extensions that actually uses C++.

So it is already pretty “webby” on the implementation side.

I say the way to go is simply to provide more FUEL-like APIs. Including jquery would be a great thing to do, however it has to be determined how much it might interfere with existing (extension) code.
The shared “namespace” is still a major obstacle.
Wladimir posted an article about some ways to overcome it recently, and it shows that it’s actually still not exactly easy:
http://adblockplus.org/blog/avoiding-naming-conflicts-in-overlays

As for the packaging part: In my opinion it isn’t that hard.
Installation manifests and Chrome manifests are fairly well documented on AMO and the actual packaging is as easy as zipping the whole into an archive (or two if you want chrome.jar)
There are some issues, but most likely only “advanced” extensions will encounter those. Like window icons must be in chrome/icons and may not be jar’ed.

A major area which isn’t addressed by your proposal at all is l10n.

In conclusion: Seems like a nice idea, however in my opinion the existing extensions “system” should be enhanced before thinking about an “extensions-light” variant (FUEL-like APIs, more documentation especially on how to achieve common tasks).

]]> By: Scott Fitchet http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4741 Scott Fitchet Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:19:23 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4741 Aza ... thanks for doing this. Would love to see your XUL notes from the last jQuery conference. How would I get something like JSON feed data into this URL bar .... http://www.figital.com/xul ? Aza … thanks for doing this. Would love to see your XUL notes from the last jQuery conference.

How would I get something like JSON feed data into this URL bar …. http://www.figital.com/xul ?

]]> By: Quickredfox http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-dream-way-to-write-a-firefox-extension/#comment-4738 Quickredfox Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:53:49 +0000 http://www.azarask.in/blog/?p=397#comment-4738 What's wrong with using greasemonkey + the user script compiler (http://arantius.com/misc/greasemonkey/script-compiler)? I mean, you did say it's the compiling and stuff that get complicated... how about edit-script-and-refresh-page? Coz that's what you get with greasemonkey What’s wrong with using greasemonkey + the user script compiler (http://arantius.com/misc/greasemonkey/script-compiler)? I mean, you did say it’s the compiling and stuff that get complicated… how about edit-script-and-refresh-page? Coz that’s what you get with greasemonkey

]]>