Mozilla2:Improving Development Environment: Difference between revisions

Line 12: Line 12:
Feel free to add items to the table below :
Feel free to add items to the table below :


<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" >
=== Few error messages ===  
<tr style="background-color : gray">
 
    <th>Problem</th>
==== Description ====
      <th>Description</th>
 
      <th>Impacts (firefox, XulRunner, Packaging)</th>
When creating a package, firefox will fail silently if their's a  
      <th>Current solutions</th>
syntax error in one of the package description files.
      <th>Proposal</th>
      <th>Ressources (Bug ID, Link)</th>
==== Impact ====
</tr>
 
<tr>
Firefox, Packaging
    <td>Few error messages</td>
 
    <td>When creating a package, firefox will fail silently if their's a syntax error in one of the package description files
==== Solutions, workarounds ====
    </td>
    <td>Firefox, Packaging</td>
Is there an option to make firefox more verbose ?
    <td>Is there an option to make firefox more verbose ?</td>
 
    <td>Make the extension module more defensive, add clear messages
==== Improvements ====
    </td>
    <td>
Make the extension module more defensive.
    </td>
Add meaningfull messages.
</tr>
 
<tr>
=== No simple option ===
    <td>No simple option</td>
 
    <td>Currently the requirements for setting up the project are very elaborate. There are too many boiler-plate items on the check list that have to be successfully completed. All of which can be assumed (see Ruby on Rails philosophy) but are potential blockers for new developers who silently pass up XUL because it looked like a lot of unnecessary pain.</td>
==== Description ====
    <td>XUL Runner apps. Mozilla/Firefox extensions.</td>
 
    <td>none</td>
Currently, the requirements for setting up the project are very elaborate.  
    <td>Why can't it be as simple as passing a jar file to xulrunner/firefox bin on the command-line - the same way you pass a jar file to java bin?</td>
There are too many boiler-plate items on the check list that have to be successfully completed.  
    <td></td>
All of which can be assumed (see Ruby on Rails philosophy) but are potential blockers for new developers who silently pass up XUL because it looked like a lot of unnecessary pain.
</tr>
 
</table>
==== Impact ====
 
XUL Runner apps. Mozilla/Firefox extensions.
 
==== Solutions, workarounds ====
 
None
 
==== Improvements ====
 
Why can't it be as simple as passing a jar file to xulrunner/firefox bin  
on the command-line - the same way you pass a jar file to java bin.
 
=== Privileges / Security barrier ===
 
==== Description ====
 
When one's developping a XUL app, he will soon face privilege issues.
actually, many access to deep Mozilla functionnalities (as interacting with XPCOM)
are restricted by privilege.
 
We understand that it is mandatory, but some privilege requirements
have impact on functionnalities that do not obviously require security
(like drag & drop for example).
 
Moreover, locally installed applications (extensions) have a special status,
will full privileges that no remote application could ever get.
Mozilla already embeds a signing facilities [http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/signed-scripts.html | signing facilities]
Signed scripts or signed applications should be able to execute with full privileges,
without prior installation.
 
This barrier may prevent the develoment of great online applications,
as we already have for XUL extenstions.
 
==== Impact ====
 
Remote applications.
 
==== Links ====
 
This point is already being discussed [[XUL:Remove_Privilege| here]]
9

edits