Confirmed users
15
edits
WebRunner:Planning: Difference between revisions
→Discussion
(suggestion for profile.js) |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
I would also like to comment on a slightly related topic: Many Firefox extensions are fully featured applications that simply deploy on top of the Mozilla platform and use Firefox as their runtime. With the news of Firefox deploying a reusable runtime I think that some of these extensions could (and should) be moved into webrunner. I love Firefox, don't get me wrong, but it's not the right place for some of the extensions that I have seen (and some that I use.) The more elaborate extensions that I install the more problems I have with Firefox stability and memory consumption. In the not-rare-enough occasion that Firefox crashes, it takes several applications with it because they run in-process with the browser. For simple browser features, regular extensions make since. For more complex application behavior I think we should be using webrunner or totally custom xul applications instead. For this reason I think that something like fuel should be encouraged and utilized even outside of Firefox. A common api could create an easy path to port an extension into a stand-alone app - at lease for the extensions that simply install a button in the browser which then launches the app into a mostly stand-alone window. | I would also like to comment on a slightly related topic: Many Firefox extensions are fully featured applications that simply deploy on top of the Mozilla platform and use Firefox as their runtime. With the news of Firefox deploying a reusable runtime I think that some of these extensions could (and should) be moved into webrunner. I love Firefox, don't get me wrong, but it's not the right place for some of the extensions that I have seen (and some that I use.) The more elaborate extensions that I install the more problems I have with Firefox stability and memory consumption. In the not-rare-enough occasion that Firefox crashes, it takes several applications with it because they run in-process with the browser. For simple browser features, regular extensions make since. For more complex application behavior I think we should be using webrunner or totally custom xul applications instead. For this reason I think that something like fuel should be encouraged and utilized even outside of Firefox. A common api could create an easy path to port an extension into a stand-alone app - at lease for the extensions that simply install a button in the browser which then launches the app into a mostly stand-alone window. | ||
[[User:20after4|20after4]]: I would like to suggest that the profile.js file be modified to allow for arbitrary profile keys to be used. I am adding features by way of an extension and I am forced to patch profile.js in order to add my own custom webapp.ini settings. The profile.js parser has a preset list of allowed parameter keys and no new ones can be accessed without modification to that file. I can submit a patch to make this change if it would be acceptable. | [[User:20after4|20after4]]: I would like to suggest that the profile.js file be modified to allow for arbitrary profile keys to be used. I am adding features by way of an extension and I am forced to patch profile.js in order to add my own custom webapp.ini settings. The profile.js parser has a preset list of allowed parameter keys and no new ones can be accessed without modification to that file. I can submit a patch to make this change if it would be acceptable. Update: I have submitted a feature request (and implementation!) in BugZilla [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395548 bug 395548] | ||