<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
I work on BirdieSync software which synchronizes contacts, events,
and possibly tasks and mails between Android, iPhone, Windows
Mobile devices and Thunderbird. I'm concerned about the last news
about the possible evolutions regarding add-ons. BirdieSync has a
third-party add-on in Thunderbird which relies on XPCOM and XUL
through binary components, and uses the needed XPCOM interfaces to
access to contacts, calendars and mails.<br>
<br>
The new step of switching to another technology than XPCOM and XUL
for add-ons would be problematic at the least. If add-ons would
need to rely exclusively on WebExtensions API in the future, it
would mean a huge work having to fully rewrite the add-on, and
potential lacks in the new restricted API. For instance, the API
to connect with native applications is only said to be "likely"
offered by Mozilla and it would be necessary to have a new
dedicated API in Thunderbird to manage contacts, calendars and
mails, available to third-party developers.<br>
<br>
I hope that alternative solutions will be possible to continue
offerring access to XPCOM components in Thunderbird, also through
binary components. I'm aware that the decision of continuing
offering support of XUL and XPCOM add-ons may not only depend on
Thunderbird will and may depend on future Mozilla Core evolutions.
If it couldn't be possible, I only hope that it would be at least
feasible to achieve with the new API what was possible with XPCOM.<br>
<br>
I will take the opportunity of this mail, to thank all the
Thunderbird team for the great job they do, their hard work and
involvement !<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
Le 8/24/2015 8:35 PM, R Kent James a écrit :<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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>