MozillaZine

Do Firefox extensions work in Camino?

Talk about the native Mac OS X browser.

Moderator: Camino Developers

poorsinfa
 
Posts: 55
Joined: October 4th, 2004, 6:10 am

Post Posted October 26th, 2004, 5:51 pm

help!
Last edited by poorsinfa on August 18th, 2006, 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

smorgan
Camino Developer
 
Posts: 2430
Joined: March 16th, 2004, 1:50 pm

Post Posted October 26th, 2004, 6:21 pm

Making Firefox extensions work in Camino is impossible (with a very, very few exceptions) because the front end for the two browsers is completely different (Firefox and Mozilla use XUL, where the entire browser is pretty much a web page, wherease Camino uses Cocoa, which is OS X native), and Firefox extensions depend on that.

Making Camino extensible should be theoritically possible, but it would have to be done pretty much for scratch and would be a *lot* of work.

Uncle Asad
Camino Developer

User avatar
 
Posts: 3957
Joined: July 24th, 2004, 1:38 pm
Location: بين العالمين

Post Posted October 26th, 2004, 8:36 pm

There is an enhancement bug filed asking for support for some extensions which don't depend on XUL, which may or may not be relevant to the extensions in which you're interested.
Mac OS X 10.3.9 • PowerBook G4 17" 1.33 GHz | Mac OS X 10.5.x • MacBook Pro 15" 2.2 GHz
Snow7's Camino Forum FAQSearch the Forum  Camino. HelpTroubleshoot Camino

rizkahz

User avatar
 
Posts: 190
Joined: May 3rd, 2004, 4:22 am

Post Posted October 27th, 2004, 6:38 am

Probably it's easier if you go and ask FireFox to become more like Camino... as I understand it, they're working on specific Mac interface issues (the road map suggests a separate release for theMac)....

jonhicks

User avatar
 
Posts: 686
Joined: January 27th, 2003, 4:07 pm
Location: Oxfordshire. UK

Post Posted October 27th, 2004, 8:18 am

We SO need to make this topic a sticky! Who can do that?

jbzoller

User avatar
 
Posts: 167
Joined: March 6th, 2004, 10:00 am
Location: Manitowoc, Wisconsin

Post Posted October 27th, 2004, 8:56 am

Well, Jon, if one of us just keeps posting something on it every couple of hours, it'll just stay at the top! ;)

DPG4450Guy
 
Posts: 67
Joined: December 11th, 2003, 8:45 pm
Location: NC

Post Posted October 30th, 2004, 7:19 am

Probably better to wait and see if some day there is a Cocoa Firefox.
But my toenails will be pretty long by then . . .

Uncle Asad
Camino Developer

User avatar
 
Posts: 3957
Joined: July 24th, 2004, 1:38 pm
Location: بين العالمين

Post Posted October 30th, 2004, 11:50 pm

From my understanding, Cocoa (UI) and XUL are completely antithetical. One can't combine them; one can't interchange them.

One can't make Firefox have a Cocoa UI; try to retrofit a Cocoa UI on to the backend and one ends up (essentially) with Camino.

At least that's what I understand. I hope that the new Camino website team goes in to a little more detail than the current buzz-phrase "Camino™ is a web browser optimized for Mac OS X with a Cocoa user interface, and powerful Gecko layout engine" and explains what this means to the end-user and the benefits. :) Besides being native and using .nibs and aqua form widgets (rather than a bunch of JS and CSS), what does a Cocoa UI really mean? I don't know. I do know those reasons are good enough for me to choose Camino over Firefox (among other reasons, but looks do count), but I am interested in learning more and better understanding things :)

gregk
 
Posts: 51
Joined: November 26th, 2002, 6:35 pm

Post Posted November 18th, 2004, 3:12 am

Of course, theoretically it should be possible to abstract XUL to the point where it can describe and build Aqua interface elements, as well.

Or maybe it would be better to say a layer would have to be added between XUL and Aqua.

QonoS
 
Posts: 234
Joined: February 11th, 2003, 8:09 pm

Post Posted November 26th, 2004, 1:27 am

I'm wondering if extension support *might* become more feasible after the 10.4 release. If I understand correctly, Tiger's Dashboard gadgets/widgets/whatever are also "essentially web pages," perhaps the same way that XUL apps like Firefox are. Like many others here, I look in awe upon those who have mastered the black art of coding, but haven't been able to study the art myself. In any event, am I barking up a completely strange tree here, or would Tiger support for these thingies help the Camino extension issue?

wktenbrook
 
Posts: 3
Joined: October 30th, 2004, 11:04 am

Post Posted November 26th, 2004, 10:16 am

Yes, it may be possible to use the Dashboard infrastructure in this way. Hyatt said, in part:

"A Dashboard widget is a bundle that contains a principal HTML file and any supporting code that the widget requires (be it CSS, JS, images, or native code). A widget can add an optional interface to native code, written in Objective-C, that can be bound into JavaScript and made accessible from the HTML document's JS window object...the "native code as a service accessible from JS" model should be familiar to anyone who has used XPCOM with XUL. It's essentially the same idea. Extensions to the Firefox browser that contain native code can expose that native code to script as an XPCOM service, and then that object can be obtained from JS and have methods/properties invoked."

However, I think some important client-side technology to do "extensions" will reside in Mac OS X 10.4 webcore and specialized Safari html tags, neither of which Camino uses. Actually, Camino could gain the ability to use the Apple extentions and webcore functions, since they are open, but this path would truly make Camino a two-headed monster, sort of a "Safino" or "Camari." It's not on the Camino radar screen.

So Camino is stuck between not using XUL (needed for the vast majority of Firefox extensions) and not using Apple HTML extensions (needed for Dashboard-style "extensions"). Maybe Stuart M. can enlighten, if he's allowed :wink:

smorgan
Camino Developer
 
Posts: 2430
Joined: March 16th, 2004, 1:50 pm

Post Posted November 26th, 2004, 2:20 pm

Before asking whether or not it's possible, a good question to ask might be: given that Camino specifically chose *not* to go the route of building a web interface on top of native system calls when a technology to do so (XUL) was already available, is a new application that builds interfaces out of HTML likely to change anything for Camino?

wktenbrook
 
Posts: 3
Joined: October 30th, 2004, 11:04 am

Post Posted November 26th, 2004, 5:00 pm

No, it is very unlikely that Camino will use any kind of web-app plugin, unless it's standardized and comes with Gecko for free. Perhaps a couple of the new Apple html additions, like canvas, may make it into WHATWG, get picked up by Gecko and trickle down to Camino, but I'm not expecting anything drastic.

I see Safari and Firefox becoming more feature-competitive, but Camino was intended to be lightweight, so it should emphasize speed, ease-of-use, simplicity.

valkraider
 
Posts: 99
Joined: January 15th, 2004, 4:51 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post Posted December 10th, 2004, 3:46 pm

<b><i>Camino was intended to be lightweight, so it should emphasize speed, ease-of-use, simplicity.</i></b><br><br>I agree. Except for one thing. Adblock. Adblock. Adblock. We desperately need ad blocking functionality in Camino. Firefox has Adblock, Safari has PithHelmet.<br><br>No debates about the merits of blocking ads please. The main reason is the ability to block Flash based ads - while still keeping legitimate Flash viewable... (In my opinion). But also, when I am browsing on dial-up or over cell phone, I like to disable ads for bandwith usage reduction. On broadband, they can stay on - except for the Flash based ads. Flash based ads = evil incarnate.

QonoS
 
Posts: 234
Joined: February 11th, 2003, 8:09 pm

Post Posted December 13th, 2004, 5:56 pm

but this path would truly make Camino a two-headed monster, sort of a "Safino" or "Camari."


Hmmm.... Calamari?

"Calamari. The tastiest browser for OS X."

Return to Camino


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests