Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Mozilla to replace add-ons with Chrome compatible extensions

(1/4) > >>

xtabber:
Mozilla has announced that they will be replacing add-ons with a new WebExtensions API that will be compatible with Chrome and Opera. XPCOM and XUL will be deprecated and all developers expected to convert their add-ons to the new API within the next year.

As part of this transition, beginning with Firefox 41, due to be released September 22, 2015, only add-ons signed by Mozilla will work with the browser.

You can read the Mozilla announcement here.

ewemoa:
Thanks for sharing this.

Curt:
To help the add-on development community understand how we will enable these improvements, we are making four related announcements today:

    We are implementing a new extension API, called WebExtensions—largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers.

    A safer, faster, multi-process version of Firefox is coming soon with Electrolysis; we need developers to ensure their Firefox add-ons will be compatible with it.

    To ensure third-party extensions provide customization without sacrificing security, performance or exposing users to malware, we will require all extensions to be validated and signed by Mozilla starting in Firefox 41, which will be released on September 22nd 2015.

    We have decided on an approximate timeline for the deprecation of XPCOM- and XUL-based add-ons.


For our add-on development community, these changes will bring greater cross-browser add-on compatibility, but will also require redevelopment of a number of existing add-ons.

We’re making a big investment by expanding the team of engineers, add-on reviewers, and evangelists who work on add-ons and support the community that develops them. They will work with the community to improve and finalize the WebExtensions API, and will help developers of unsupported add-ons make the transition to newer A-Mozilla
--- End quote ---

Forgive me for not (yet) giving praise.

But Thank You for telling, xtabber.

40hz:
I sense a little circling of the wagons at work here. But I'm hoping I'm wrong.

However...

Requiring an extension be certified before it will work (in the name of "better security" for end-users) just the old walled garden argument once again. I'm pretty disgusted to hear Mozilla saying it. But Mozilla is like so many other "open" projects that woke up one day and realized they were (theoretically) giving away a few million and not seeing much in return money-wise. Do I detect a hint that they're having some hopes Google will buy them out eventually?

Time was when the open project crowd had more faith in their users - as well as considerably more respect. The philosophy used to be: "We can only advise. You're free to do whatever you want - including completely borking your system if you choose not to listen to our advice. It's your system and your decision - not ours."

Now it seems that Mozilla (having previously decided - after much faux hand-wringing - to cave in and embed DRM support in FF) has now determined that their users also need a nanny.

My but how times have changed!

(It's enough to make me sick.) >:(

ewemoa:
So have you found a good alternative browser yet ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page