MozillaZine

Split from Getting Your Extensions Listed

Talk about add-ons and extension development.
TheOneKEA

User avatar
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: October 16th, 2003, 5:47 am
Location: Somewhere in London, riding the Underground

Post Posted May 22nd, 2004, 2:27 pm

sboulema's Extensions Mirror will have both 0.8 and 0.9 extensions listed on the same forum topic section. Would it be difficult to make arrangements to link to his website, so that people can also download old extensions for whatever purpose?
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire
Registered Linux User #289618

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted May 22nd, 2004, 2:38 pm

We will not be linking to anything "old" other than perhaps texturizer.net at launch.
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

PsychoticWolf

User avatar
 
Posts: 28
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:44 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post Posted May 22nd, 2004, 3:05 pm

There's no plans to list extensions that work with 0.8 that don't work with 0.9. Though the site will support Firefox 0.8 users, and show lists of current (Firefox 0.9 compatible) extensions that work with the previous versions. (Based on the target application information in the install manifest).

I'm not sure I see a reason to link to any of the current extension sites for users to download old extensions, since Firefox 0.9 won't support any of the old extensions, and Firefox 0.8 currently refers users to texturizer.net/extensionroom etc.
<b>Wolf</b>
<a href="http://www.psychoticwolf.net/">The Lair of the Wolf</a> | Wolf on <a href="irc://irc.mozilla.org/">irc.mozilla.org</a>

jedbro

User avatar
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: November 10th, 2002, 12:35 pm
Location: Mexico / Boulder Co.

Post Posted May 25th, 2004, 6:57 am

PsychoticWolf wrote:Probably the best way to notify the Mozilla Update developers, is to comment on <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244381">Bug 244381</a>.


Wouldn't it be best to use a Forum thread instead of polluting buzilla, plus the fact that entries cannot be edited in bugzilla?
A thread like "Extensions that work with Fx 0.9" could be suitable.

Plus it would make ExtensionRoom/Texturizer and sboulema's job a lot easier for updating our databases.

Just an idea.
-Jed

PsychoticWolf

User avatar
 
Posts: 28
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:44 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post Posted May 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

I'm using that bug (Bug 244381), just to keep a list of updated extensions, with all the needed info, for the site's launch, once it's up, that bug will be closed. I don't mind watching a forum thread for updated extensions, or if authors want to post the requested info on this thread, that's fine too. The important thing is that, if all the needed info to add it isn't available and I can't locate it, then it will delay the extension/theme from getting added, possibly till after the sites launch.

I'd appreciate any help you or sboulema or any of the other existing extension site maintainers can provide with getting this list together. However it'd be the easiest. If there's anything I can do to make it easier for the existing sites to get the info, then I'll try to work with them to do that. :-)

-- Wolf

mjwilson
 
Posts: 140
Joined: December 17th, 2002, 2:43 pm

Post Posted May 26th, 2004, 11:45 am

For Firefox, the plan is to only list extensions/themes on the site that work on Firefox 0.9.


So we're just talking about links to where the extensions are hosted, is that correct?

Or will update.mozilla.org be hosting the extensions, and/or their update.rdf files?

cuneaform

User avatar
 
Posts: 47
Joined: March 30th, 2004, 7:09 am

Post Posted May 27th, 2004, 6:24 am

Please add cuneAform...

Author Name: Robin Monks
Email: mozillaman@linuxmail.org
Extension's name: cuneAform
Version: 0.2.7
Description: A WYSIWYG (X)HTML editor for Mozilla/FireFox the aims to provide full support for standards such as XHTML and CSS.
Homepage URL: cuneaform.mozdev.org
URL to the updated XPI: http://downloads.mozdev.org/cuneaform/cuneAform.xpi
Target Application Versions: FireFox: 0.6 - current (nightly) ; Mozilla 1.5 - current (1.8a)
Robin

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted May 27th, 2004, 11:00 am

mjwilson wrote:
For Firefox, the plan is to only list extensions/themes on the site that work on Firefox 0.9.


So we're just talking about links to where the extensions are hosted, is that correct?

Or will update.mozilla.org be hosting the extensions, and/or their update.rdf files?


In theory, mozilla.org will host those that have been verified as compatible. There will be a web service that the extension/theme manager can check to see if an update is available.
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

DerManoMann
 
Posts: 101
Joined: March 31st, 2004, 5:39 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post Posted May 27th, 2004, 5:39 pm

alanjstr wrote:
mjwilson wrote:
For Firefox, the plan is to only list extensions/themes on the site that work on Firefox 0.9.


So we're just talking about links to where the extensions are hosted, is that correct?

Or will update.mozilla.org be hosting the extensions, and/or their update.rdf files?


In theory, mozilla.org will host those that have been verified as compatible. There will be a web service that the extension/theme manager can check to see if an update is available.


Does that mean extension developer can get some kind of account to maintain/update their extensions on mozilla.org?

Will there be any formal process to validate extensions to make sure they won't break anything?

PsychoticWolf

User avatar
 
Posts: 28
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:44 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post Posted May 27th, 2004, 5:47 pm

Correct, an extension/theme developer can get an account on update.mozilla.org to maintain their extensions. All submissions require an update.mozilla.org editor to approve them, it's the editors who are responsible for making sure that the extension or theme is really compatible. Based on the information provided by the extension/theme author.

Update.rdf files do not apply to extensions/themes hosted with update.mozilla.org. As this is the default update service for Firefox 0.9.
<b>Wolf</b>
<a href="http://www.psychoticwolf.net/">The Lair of the Wolf</a> | Wolf on <a href="irc://irc.mozilla.org/">irc.mozilla.org</a>

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted May 28th, 2004, 1:35 am

I've noticed that a lot of websites (mirrors, blogs, etc.) link directly to extension XPIs, so I'm going to use install.js to display a message for people using incompatible browsers.

Code: Select all
initInstall("Titlebar Tweaks", "/Cosmic Cat Creations/titletweak", "0.0");

alert("Sorry, this extension package is too advanced for your browser.\n"
   + "Please upgrade your browser to a newer version or visit\n"
   + "http://cosmicat.com/ for an older version of Titlebar Tweaks.");

cancelInstall();

The initInstall/cancelInstall stuff is so Firebird 0.7 and earlier display the "Cancelled" message in the XPInstall dialog.

jensb

User avatar
 
Posts: 544
Joined: April 23rd, 2003, 12:42 pm
Location: Germany

Post Posted May 28th, 2004, 7:24 am

momokatte wrote:I've noticed that a lot of websites (mirrors, blogs, etc.) link directly to extension XPIs, so I'm going to use install.js to display a message for people using incompatible browsers.
Why don't you keep an install.js to have one XPI package for both old and new browsers???
Mouse Gestures - control your browser the elegant way
MessageFaces - embed pictures in mail header

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted May 28th, 2004, 8:48 am

jensb wrote:Why don't you keep an install.js to have one XPI package for both old and new browsers???

Because the browser continues to change, and a lot of my extensions are stopgap features interfacing with code that will eventually be fixed or rewritten. I'm working full-time now, so I've decided to support the aviary branch exclusively.

I'm GPL'ing all of my extensions this weekend, so if anyone wants to maintain them for Mozilla Firebird / Mozilla Suite / Netscape they may feel free to do so.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13671
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted June 1st, 2004, 6:49 pm

I have two questions:
1) If I send you my details, can my email address be kept private? (i.e. I can use it for submitting my extensions/updates, but it doesn't get displayed to end-users)

Example:
  • I release an extension for 0.9.
  • I spot a bug and fix it a week after the initial release.
  • I provide that update on updates.mozilla.org for my users to get at.
  • Before 1.0 an API that I use changes in some way, making both of my previous releases (original and updated) incompatible with 1.0.
  • I update that extension for 1.0.
2) For people who are still using 0.9 and the original version of my extension (containing the bug)... will they have access to the 0.9 compatible update, even though there is a newer version available? If this is allowed, then could I edit the 0.9 compatible update's "About" info to state that there is a newer version, but you have to have Firefox 1.0 for it?

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted June 1st, 2004, 8:28 pm

Yes, there is an option to not show email addresses. It is the default.
The update checker matches your browser version with the compatibility of the extension.
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

Return to Extension Development


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest