
WebExtensions in Firefox 52 - AndrewDucker
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/18/webextensions-in-firefox-52/
======
conductor
Is there going to be a permissions system where I can specifically choose
which set of APIs I allow to dispose to each extension?

~~~
jupenur
Yes, there already is. Firefox enforces the same manifest permissions in
WebExtensions as Chrome.

~~~
lucideer
I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users, not for
WebExtension developers. I don't believe there is that. It seems like it would
be relatively trivial to add given the manifest permissions system is already
in place though.

~~~
hackuser
> I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users

This seems far beyond the capabilities of most users to understand. Perhaps
someone can make an add-on for power users who are interested.

~~~
nightpool
Android and iPhone do it, so....

~~~
wlesieutre
For _some_ privileges. You can say "No, don't allow photos access," but there
are other permissions like internet access that you can't block.

~~~
madeofpalk
Actually for certain classes of iOS 'apps' you can do exactly this - to enable
third party iOS keyboard access you need to go into Settings and enable an
extended privilege set (which includes internet access)

------
plq
Will I be able to keep my tree style tabs?

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-
ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

The moment this plugin stops working is the moment I stop upgrading.
Seriously!

~~~
cpeterso
Tree Style Tabs should continue to work. It's a very popular extension.
Mozilla should probably include a disclaimer about Tree Style Tabs still
working with any blog post about WebExtensions. :)

Mozilla is now beta testing a prototype of native Firefox vertical tabs,
though it is not as advanced as Tree Style Tabs:

[https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-
center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center)

~~~
razster
Vivaldi has a nice Tree tab style that I constantly use, it has become second
nature - we're even looking at replicating it for our enrollment software,
crazy enough.

------
lukaa
Firefox should concentrate on its biggest asset, ability to customize
natively. For example I would like option to customize right click so when i
right click term i would like to have ability to search by all search engines
that i want to use not only default.Also most annoying thing in both browsers
is not having ability to copy link as text not only its address.

~~~
halflings
You can copy links as text (at least in Chrome): just right-click and choose
"Copy".

~~~
berdario
It's weird, I remember a similar option being there, but it's not (neither in
Firefox nor Chrome)

[http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt](http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt)

~~~
nightpool
WFM on Mac: [http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png](http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png)

~~~
weaksauce
Doesn't work unless you select the text for me.

~~~
nightpool
On a mid-2014 Macbook Pro, I'm having a hard time right-clicking _without_
selecting the text using the touchpad. I think its automatic. How are you
doing it?

~~~
weaksauce
I am using right click with a magic mouse on an early 2011-mbp. FWIW I just
tried it on my touchpad without selecting anything and it doesn't show that
copy option in the context menu. It is possible that it's a setting somewhere.

------
floopidydoopidy
The thing I like about Mozilla is that it isn't Microsoft or Google. Should I
be buying more tinfoil?

~~~
pryelluw
No, that's ok. That's one of the reasons I use ff as well.

~~~
addicted
It's a good reason IMO. MS browsers push MS services and Google does the same
with Chrome. For example, I have to be logged in with my G account to download
an extension for my browser. I am struggling to see the connection between the
two.

Finally, google links everything together (as we saw with the resold Pixel
debacle), so why would I want to increase the risk of breaking Google TOS by
using their browser.

~~~
Animats
Firefox pushes Mozilla services, such as their "Sync". They've also pushed
commercial services, such as "Pocket", over user objections.[1] And, of
course, they were paid to make Yahoo (of all things) the default search
engine.

[1]
[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PY...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ)

~~~
techwizrd
They don't really push Sync. Most people are unaware of it.

I disagree with many of the concerns over Pocket as they are alarmist and
overblown. The Pocket code is MPLv2 (open-source) and it isn't "spyware". This
is trivially verified by looking at the code.

Mozilla used to have a partnership with Google that accounted for 85% to 91%
of their revenue. Mozilla needs funding to survive, and Yahoo! provides some
of that funding.

It is a false equivalence to suggest that the way Microsoft or Google pushes
their services is anything like Mozilla's actions. Mozilla has always pushed
for an open web and strong privacy protections. Google only implemented Do Not
Track after Firefox did. Mozilla just released an ad-blocking browser for iOS
to go along with their ad-blocking add-on. Comments like these only push that
false equivalence.

------
wiiittttt
The post indicates that 52 was released this week, but Developer Edition still
shows the latest update is 51.0a2 for me. Anyone else?

~~~
caiob
Same here.

------
Animats
This is basically "we have to be compatible with the guys with the bigger
market share". Unclear why. Nobody installs add-ons on Chrome. I have the same
add-on for Firefox and Chrome, and it has 100x the installs on Firefox that it
does on Chrome.

~~~
pygy_
They needed to revamp the plugin architecture in order to support
multithreading. The current FF extension API relies on the fact that the
browser UI and the Web content share the same OS thread.

Google Chrome was built with multithreading in mind from the ground up (well,
even multiple processes), and its extension API was designed around that
architecture.

I think Mozilla made the right choice by picking and extending an existing API
that has seen a lot of real world code written against it, rather than
inventing a new, incompatible one.

~~~
Animats
_They needed to revamp the plugin architecture in order to support
multithreading. The current FF extension API relies on the fact that the
browser UI and the Web content share the same OS thread._

No, it doesn't. The long-obsolete XUL API did, but the current Jetpack API
does not. There's a per-addon task and a per-page task, which communicate via
message passing.

~~~
jupenur
Jetpack/SDK still isn't fully E10s compatible, see
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/SDK/Guides/Multi...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/SDK/Guides/Multiprocess_Firefox_and_the_SDK)

~~~
Animats
Only if you use low-level APIs from the "privileged module" list.[1] The main
high-level Jetpack APIs are multiprocess-compatible.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Low-
Level_AP...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Low-Level_APIs)

------
diminish
Cool work, and When do WebComponents become enabled by default, does anyone
know?

~~~
Touche
Doesn't look like they are really actively working on it:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230)

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323)

Which is weird because FF devs are active in spec discussion for web
components. Maybe they are working on some lower-level infrastructure stuff
before they can tackle these, I'm not sure.

~~~
Manishearth
Firefox already has most of the pieces for web components because XBL (an XML
thingy for building UI widgets that is basically WebComponents but older). I
suspect it's just blocked on deciding when the spec is ready for
implementation in Firefox.

~~~
diminish
Most web component websites suffer badly on Firefox, due to polyfills. I m
still hopeful.

------
Figs
So, is this the version of Firefox that kills all existing add-ons?

~~~
oblio
Haven't they been working with add-on makers to port things over?

~~~
hackernews2000
Yes.

* [https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-fir...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-firefox-and-add-ons-a-call-to-action/)

* [https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiproc...](https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiprocess_Firefox#Adapting_to_Multiple_Processes)

~~~
kuschku
So, when will we be able to use WebExtensions to modify the main UI’s scripts
and DOM?

I want to add tab previews with screenshots on hover (as in vivaldi), I want
to use custom history (and completely change the way the omnibar works by
searching through that custom history server with fulltext indexing of all
visited webpages).

When can we expect that (which is possible with existing extensions) to land
in WebExtensions?

~~~
jupenur
Not any time soon. They're aiming for maximum compatibility with Chrome
extensions, and Chrome doesn't have anything like that, so I wouldn't expect
it to be a priority in Firefox either.

~~~
nbb
This seems like literally the stupidest thing they could prioritize.

~~~
AgentME
The new multi-process architecture is fundamentally incompatible with many of
their old extension APIs. The new multi-process architecture is one of their
priorities (they're the last popular browser to get a multi-process
architecture -- even IE has had this forever -- and it will solve many of
their performance issues), and so another priority is implementing new APIs
for extensions to use.

------
msh
Why do browser makers keep implementing new ways for companies to spy on end
users? I had expected better of Mozilla.

The response to the web of trust shit show should have been to neuter add ons.

~~~
nnethercote
Mozilla has been gradually restricting what add-ons can do in Firefox
precisely because of problems with malware. This is another step in that
process.

