<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body smarttemplateinserted="true" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="smartTemplate4-template">A couple of questions from my
perspective as author of heavily "chrome-layer"-dependent Tb
extensions:<br>
<br>
Could we design a survey for Thunderbird Addons authors to ask
them what kind of objects they use? <br>
<br>
I usually go through Components.interfaces and Components.classes
to get access, if their usage were deprecated I would advocate
creating a wrapper API. I am not quite sure what "counts as" XPCOM
but I go by the classification on msdn (which includes all of the
.nsI Interfaces and .ns* constructs)<br>
<br>
Also does moving away from XPCOM also include a restriction of
accessing global variables?<br>
<br>
Finally for me the reliance on XUL to modify the "main" user
interface (outside of content tabs) is a vitally important
requirement, I wonder how Firefox deals with this? Moving its
complete UI into Content Tabs, like seen in Chrome feels like a
lazy hack. Certain things like modeless floating windows are
impossible to achieve (or maybe not anymore?). Are there some
specialists on the list who are up to date with the current API in
Firefox? Can it be reused in Thunderbird?<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
Axel<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<style type="text/css">
.myName:hover, .myName a:hover { font-size:13pt; text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px rgba(200,250,200,0.7);}
.moz-signature {opacity: 1.0 !important;}
.myName a { cursor: pointer !important; transition:font-size 0.5s;}
.myLogo {
transition: all .4s ease-out;
}
.myLogo:hover {
transform: scale(3) translate(-30px,-5px);
}
</style>
<div id="mySignature" style="width: 65%; padding: 0.8em 1.2em;
font:x-small verdana; color: #444; box-shadow: 4px 4px 9px -2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border-radius: 1em; padding: 0.4em 2em;
border: 1px dashed #444; background: rgb(230,240,163);
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(230,240,163,1)
0%,rgba(210,230,56,1) 50%,rgba(195,216,37,1)
51%,rgba(219,240,67,1) 100%);"> <b class="myName"
style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px #DDD; transition:font-size
0.5s;"><a href="mailto:axel.grude@gmail.com">Axel Grude</a></b>
<br>
Software Developer <br>
Thunderbird Add-ons Developer <span style="color:#666666;
font-size:xx-small">(QuickFolders, quickFilters,
QuickPasswords, Zombie Keys, SmartTemplate4)</span> <br>
AMO Editor <img style="margin-top: 1em; float: right;
box-shadow: 1px 1px 2px rgba(20, 20, 20, 0.4);"
moz-do-not-send="false" class="myLogo"
src="cid:part2.09050004.00030300@gmail.com" alt="Get
Thunderbird!" height="15" width="94"> </div>
</div>
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<style type="text/css" scoped="">
#newHeaderAG1 b { font-weight:bold; color: #990033; }
</style><br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin-bottom: -20px !important;
padding-bottom:20px !important;">
<div id="newHeaderAG1" style="font-size: x-small; padding:1em;
background-color:rgba(220,220,240,0.4); border-radius:3px;"> <b>Subject:</b>
Re: Thunderbird and Addons<br>
<b>To:</b> R Kent James, Tb-planning <br>
<b>From: </b>Philipp Kewisch<br>
<b>Sent: </b>Monday, 24/08/2015 20:48:43 20:48 GMT ST +0100
[Week 34]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_55DB751B_6070700_kewis_ch"
cite="mid:55DB751B.6070700@kewis.ch" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 class=" cite" id="mid_55DB63E7_50801_caspia_com"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>
<br>
</body>
</html>