Can we at least ask them to remove the stuff in FF 60, not 59? It will be too late if addons stop working now before TB release. ----- Pôvodná správa ----- Predmet: [Maildev] Fwd: [Bug 1413413] Remove support for extensions having their own prefs file Od: Jörg Knobloch <jorgk@jorgk.com> Pre: Thunderbird email developers <maildev@lists.thunderbird.net> Dátum: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:29:52 +0100 > More light reading ;-( - If you're in a rush, scroll to the very last > paragraph. > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Bug 1413413] Remove support for extensions having their own > prefs file > Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:01:59 +0000 > From: Bugzilla@Mozilla <bugzilla-daemon@mozilla.org> > To: jorgk@jorgk.com > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1413413 > > --- Comment #16 from Kris Maglione [:kmag] (long backlog; ping on IRC if > you're blocked) <kmaglione+bmo@mozilla.com> 2017-11-04 21:01:59 CET --- > (In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #15) >>> Honestly, if you're still using non-bootstrapped extensions, you're >>> going to have much bigger problems soon. >> >> I'd say most TB extension as non-bootstrapped since they overload part of >> the UI. I'm just a novice add-on author, I found that for simple things >> bootstrapped extensions are OK, but for heavy stuff it needs to be >> non-bootstrapped. Our calendar add-on Lightning is non-bootstrapped. > > It's perfectly possible for bootstrapped add-ons to overload parts of > the UI. > We've had many heavyweight bootstrapped add-ons that do just that, in > Firefox. > > *Regardless, support for non-bootstrapped legacy extensions is being removed > from the add-on manager and other parts of the platform. It's a huge > maintenance burden, and we can't continue to support it just for the sake of > Thunderbird.* > > > _______________________________________________ > Maildev mailing list > Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net > http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net >

Well, we knew that was coming. They had planned to remove the XUL extensions support since about 2 years. Now they do it. Again, I think the solution is to maintain patches on top of Gecko, and to essentially revert their changes for our Gecko. We cannot ask them to maintain this stuff just for us. They already decided that they don't want to do that. Yes, it will be higher maintenance burden for us. But we knew that would come. Ben Jörg Knobloch wrote on 04.11.17 21:29: > > More light reading ;-( - If you're in a rush, scroll to the very last > paragraph. > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Bug 1413413] Remove support for extensions having their own > prefs file > Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:01:59 +0000 > From: Bugzilla@Mozilla <bugzilla-daemon@mozilla.org> > To: jorgk@jorgk.com > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1413413 > > --- Comment #16 from Kris Maglione [:kmag] (long backlog; ping on IRC > if you're blocked) <kmaglione+bmo@mozilla.com> 2017-11-04 21:01:59 CET --- > (In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #15) >>> Honestly, if you're still using non-bootstrapped extensions, you're going to have much bigger problems soon. >> >> I'd say most TB extension as non-bootstrapped since they overload part of >> the UI. I'm just a novice add-on author, I found that for simple things >> bootstrapped extensions are OK, but for heavy stuff it needs to be >> non-bootstrapped. Our calendar add-on Lightning is non-bootstrapped. > > It's perfectly possible for bootstrapped add-ons to overload parts of > the UI. > We've had many heavyweight bootstrapped add-ons that do just that, in > Firefox. > > *Regardless, support for non-bootstrapped legacy extensions is being > removed > from the add-on manager and other parts of the platform. It's a huge > maintenance burden, and we can't continue to support it just for the > sake of > Thunderbird.* > > _______________________________________________ > Maildev mailing list > Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net > http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net