Status of click-to-play plugins in Firefox 24/26
ahughes at mozilla.com
Thu Oct 31 15:44:05 UTC 2013
We've been testing a myriad of sites (and plugins) ever since the first implementation of Click-to-Play landed on mozilla-central (I forget which Fx version that was). I can't give you a concrete list right now of all the sites we've tested going back to when we started testing CTP but here is a list of what was tested most recently (in Fx 26b1):
QA Engineer, Desktop Firefox
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence Mandel" <lmandel at mozilla.com>
> To: "Benjamin Smedberg" <benjamin at smedbergs.us>
> Cc: "release-drivers" <release-drivers at mozilla.org>, "Firefox Dev" <firefox-dev at mozilla.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:13:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Status of click-to-play plugins in Firefox 24/26
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 10/30/2013 11:52 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > > From the short list of sites that you have gathered have you been able
> > > to extract patterns of Java usage (i.e. how Java is programmatically
> > > used within a page)?
> > There were two bugs in the Firefox UI that prevented sites from working,
> > which may be common patterns across more sites. But the sample of real
> > sites I have is too small to actually draw many conclusions.
> How much testing have we done of real sites? If you need to create a list of
> sites to test, jjensen has used simple scripts in the past to sift through
> large amounts of Web content in order to pull out useful information, like
> the use of specific CSS properties. His scripts may be able to be
> re-purposed for identifying sites that make use of Java content.
> > The patches in my queue make all of the known sites work except for
> > http://www.lidl-druckservice.de/flyer-din-a5.html which doesn't work in
> > Chrome and appears to just be broken.
> > > If so, are the usage patterns and our solution for them documented
> > > somewhere? Lawrence
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Site_Author_Guide_for_Click-To-Activate_Plugins
> > is still the recommended solutions for site authors. Nothing much has
> > really changed there:
> > * recommend using callbacks for plugin activation
> > * recommend makin plugins visible at least until they are activated
> > > Of course we need to keep in mind that users just want these sites to
> > > work
> > > so that they can do whatever their task happens to be. While we want to
> > > secure our users they do have an option if a site doesn't work in Firefox
> > > - try another browser.
> > We want to absolutely be no worse than Chrome on any site that has
> > significant market share. However, we also made the decision that
> > letting a few people walk was probably the correct decision in this
> > case, because the improved stability and performance for everyone else
> > is noticeable.
> > > In terms of uplifting, is there a good reason to keep this change in 26?
> > > If
> > > UI and string changes are required, why not defer to a later release?
> > At this point, it does not look like any string changes will be required.
> > The hard part about this is that we aren't going to get any meaningful
> > testing of CtP except on the beta channel. So in order for this not to
> > sit in several long 6-week cycles, we need to iterate on it rapidly on
> > the beta channel. At this point I'm not committed to actually shipping
> > this in 26, but I do think we should try to make the necessary
> > improvements and uplift them as quickly as safety allows, in order to
> > validate our opinion on whether this is safe enough to ship.
> > --BDS
> firefox-dev mailing list
> firefox-dev at mozilla.org
More information about the firefox-dev