[scottjad]

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-dev...

[wvenable]

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.

[Tobu]

Tab Mix Plus is explicitly mentioned as something they'll support: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs

[wvenable]

Lets be clear; they won't be supporting Tab Mix Plus. They will be providing an API that might allow something similar to be built by someone. This is a good thing but nothing is guaranteed.

[brighteyes]

It's not guaranteed, but they said they are hiring people to work with addon developers to update their addons. It seems very likely Tab Mix Plus would be on the top of that list, since it's already mentioned as an addon they want to work in the new model.

[brighteyes]

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]

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]

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.

[the8472]

So it's ok to make life harder for 1% so the 99% have it easier?

And why make it "safer" for the 99%, considering they have been able to live with the current situation for years?

Shouldn't things be improved for everyone?

And aren't those 1% that tinker those who provide new stuff to the 99%?

[hugoc]

That and Tree Style Tabs are the reason I left Chrome. The path that firefox has been on for the last few months is sad.

[thom_nic]

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]

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.

[azakai]

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.

[tn123]

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.

[pcwalton]

> 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)

Those are popular add-ons. See the post: "Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible."

> What Firefox can do, your add-on can do, and a lot of more things as well

XPCOM has never exposed everything, and in fact has steadily reduced its scope since "de-COMtamination" began a decade ago.

[tn123]

Yeah, and the not-so-popular add-ons can screw themselves, I guess. Your add-on only has 10.000 users? 200 users? uhhh... Sorry, priorities.

Then again, actually look at the vimperator or pentadactyl code... That code interacts and/or hooks a ton of stuff. Designing and implementing APIs just to support that will require a lot of time. And that is just one add-on.

Furthermore, do you really believe that add-ons like vimperator or Tab Mix Plus or Stylish or SqliteManager would have been created if there was no "open API"? I don't think so.

Also, did you know that a lot of the Chrome extension API was created after directly soliciting feedback from Firefox add-on developers? Yet, a ton of add-ons still couldn't or just weren't supported in the Chrome API. And added to that, the Chrome API kinda stagnated after that.

[nextos]

This is really sad. I cannot surf the web without vimperator/pentadactyl now. It's so useful. I have quick keybindings for switching to an ssh tunnel, or doing site specific web searches, etc.

I don't see anyone developing a vim/emacs-like browser from scratch. Many projects like uzbl or luakit failed. It takes a lot of manpower. Doing things on top of Firefox made it relatively easy, not a heroic effort.

[brighteyes]

Maybe the Chrome API stagnated, but that doesn't mean the same will happen here. The stated goals already include addons impossible in Chrome's API.

[the8472]

But that still means you have to ask the gatekeeper first to please make an API available for what you have in mind. And the gatekeeper might say "no". Or say "sounds nice, but our backlog is thiiiiiis long".

With the old model nobody had to ask for permission, they could just develop and then mozilla could choose to support their use-case through a less hacky API.

[azakai]

I agree that those are valid concerns. And yes, the new API will be more restrictive, it sounds, and intentionally so.

But the post asks for feedback and input regarding what new APIs to add. You're right they won't add everything, but we don't know yet how much they will. They also say their team is hiring more people to help move this API forward and work with addon developers to port their addons, so slow progress in the past might finally be changing now. This sounds like it has become a high priority.

So overall it's hard to say how much of a problem the issues you raised will be. This path has some obvious benefits as well as risks, and it'll be interesting to see how it works out. I just think wholesale pessimism at this point is unjustified.

[nolok]

He is quoting a comment, he's not the author of what you read.

[azakai]

Yes, sorry, I meant the comment was overly pessimistic. I'll edit.

[rcthompson]

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.

[jmhain]

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

[dafrankenstein2]

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