[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.

[brighteyes]

It's true that the new model will be more limited. But you can't deny the old model had downsides. That's why Firefox is moving away from it, and why no other browser uses the old model.

It might be interesting for someone to make a browser that is easily extensible in every way. That probably wouldn't become a mainstream browser, so it wouldn't compete for market share with chrome, firefox, edge, and safari. But it could be fun for power users.

[simonster]

Mozilla and later Firefox were browsers that were easily extensible in every way. Given experience with the XUL/XPCOM/JS stack, you can still pretty much do anything you want without too much difficulty. However, three things have happened since then:

1) No one outside of Mozilla adopted XUL/XPCOM/JS as an application platform. There are probably many reasons for this, but the main one, based on my recollection of early Mozilla, was that XUL was too slow and didn't look native, and JS was likewise too slow and not considered to be a real programming language. That has changed significantly since Mozilla's introduction, as both the layout and JS engines have improved substantially, but that was the picture at its introduction. In time, JS was revitalized, but so was HTML. HTML has now achieved some success as an application platform (e.g. Atom and Spotify), but XUL remains basically unused outside of Mozilla.

2) Because no one adopted XUL/XPCOM/JS, Mozilla stopped looking at it as an application platform and started looking at it as a legacy technology that they at one time used to build a browser. As a result, it began to stagnate, and interest in documenting things so that other people outside of Mozilla could use them waned. And because XUL/XPCOM/JS are now niche technologies, no one knows them and there's no value in learning them outside of being able to write Firefox extensions, so Firefox does not seem so easily extensible to outsiders.

3) Chrome happened, and Mozilla saw what Chrome gained by not building a fully extensible platform and wants that for itself. On the flip side, I'm not sure that Mozilla fully recognizes what it currently gains from having an extensible platform.

[the8472]

> But you can't deny the old model had downsides.

Sure, but also upsides. That doesn't mean the change, as announced, is the ideal trade-off.

You could easily add an "you can continue to access all browser internels if you flip this switch" option to let those who are willing to break their browser do so and let everyone else be nannied by mozilla.

> That's why Firefox is moving away from it, and why no other browser uses the old model.

That is a distinguishing factor to many users. Maybe not to the majority, but that majority might also be just as happy with chrome and simply stick with firefox due to inertia, who knows.

[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.