<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">While in the short run I'd agree to all
three points you mention, I think we need to plan on how we will
interact with the new addon plans of Mozilla. If we go with this
statement now and only make changes when core Mozilla code no
longer supports it, it will be way too late to transition
Thunderbird addons then and we will have an even bigger problem.<br>
<br>
I do think that we should try to make the most out of what they
are doing with Web Extensions and System Extensions. If this is
what it is going to be, then we'll need to provide a set of APIs
that Thunderbird addons can use, based on what our addons are
currently doing. I've added two ideas to the uservoice page [1]
[2] (plus my comment on [3]) that would benefit Thunderbird, if
you have a moment please vote :)<br>
<br>
It is a bit to early to make concrete suggestions on what a such
API will look like since I am still unsure how they plan to
replace the xul overlaying which we make more extensive use of.
Working on this API early doesn't mean we can't keep xul based
addons enabled longer than Firefox, but if we have to shut this
done from one day to another our addon community will probably be
nonexistent.<br>
<br>
It is also a premier opportunity to work with the addons folks so
that WebExtensions doesn't turn into a second Addon-SDK that
doesn't work well for Thunderbird.<br>
<br>
Philipp<br>
<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9440682-allow-extensions-to-define-new-api">https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9440682-allow-extensions-to-define-new-api</a><br>
[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9440709-make-sure-it-is-easy-for-gecko-applications-to-re">https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9440709-make-sure-it-is-easy-for-gecko-applications-to-re</a><br>
[3]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9437139-add-a-toolbar-api">https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas/suggestions/9437139-add-a-toolbar-api</a><br>
<br>
On 8/24/15 8:35 PM, R Kent James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55DB63E7.50801@caspia.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
We need to do some sort of announcement in the Thunderbird blog
about our plans concerning addons. I'd like to have feedback from
folks to see if there is any debate about what is the correct
direction for us.<br>
<br>
We've at least agreed that we are continuing to support binary
addons. Concerning signing, we took steps months ago to not move
forward on requiring addons to be signed, so there are no current
plans to require signing. There is still some debate about that in
bug 1168571. We should probably come to a firm decision and
announce it. Most commenters were opposed to signing, though there
were some holdouts.<br>
<br>
Then there is "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/">The
Future of Developing Firefox Add-ons - The Mozilla Blog</a>"
that announces the complete disabling of current XUL addons at
some point in the future. Several Thunderbird community members
commented on that blog post, strongly opposed to that direction.<br>
<br>
Contrast that with <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Go_Faster">Firefox/Go
Faster</a> where there are plans to expand the use of addons in
Firefox, adding so-called "system add-ons" and moving Hello to
one. (This is similar to what we are doing with Lightning, which
should hopefully make our Lightning integration easier in the
future).<br>
<br>
At this point, I think that the prevailing viewpoint is probably
the following, and I would like to announce this if possible in a
blog post:<br>
<br>
1) Thunderbird continues to support binary addons.<br>
2) Thunderbird will not require addon signing.<br>
3) Thunderbird has no current plans to disable the use of
traditional XUL/XPCOM addons in Thunderbird.<br>
<br>
This policy must be modified by the caveat "as long as core
Mozilla code can be used to support it".<br>
<br>
(I might also note that initial patches are being looked at for
the integration of the technology formerly know as Skinkglue into
Thunderbird core, to be called JsAccount, which makes it possible
to define new account types in Thunderbird using a traditional
XUL/XPCOM/JavaScript addon. This will almost certainly be in our
next major release).<br>
<br>
Could I have some comments or discussion on these proposed
positions?<br>
<br>
I hope the Thunderbird community appreciates that diverging from
Mozilla in this manner will probably mean that we will need to
take over addon review from Thunderbird at some point, possibly
including forking of AMO for our own use.<br>
<br>
:rkent<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>