| I'm prepared to be wrong, as I am not an expert on XUL, Electrolysis, or the Firefox runtime. I can however interpret what Mozilla says is the reasoning behind breaking XUL extensions, which is: XUL extensions, among other things, get in the way of getting Electrolysis working. That's linked from this blog post. If things have to break in the short term for Mozilla to modernize Firefox's runtime hardening, well, that breakage seems worth it. Just based on the knowledge of what security flaws in Firefox get used for in the real world. --- (few min later) As an aside: if this is the definition of "XUL extensions can be made to work with e10s": The lack of an synchronous API in the chrome side is intentional: because the chrome process runs the Firefox UI, any responsiveness problems affect the whole browser. By making the chrome process block on the content process, CPOWs break this principle and allow an unresponsive content process to make the whole browser unresponsive. ... I can kind of see where they're coming from, even w/o considering security. |