Firefox extension descriptor http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/extensions/packaging/extensions.html
Most docs and books describing "installed-chrome.txt" or install.js seem out of date now. Too bad the web is full of outdated information, I wish Firefox had a better set of developer docs or some clear list of changes compared with old mozilla.

It seems the install mechanism switched from the free-form javascript installer to a strict layout and format. Not a bad idea, but instead of beeing simpler - it feels much more complex. Why force people to use GUIDs ? Compare this with the extension mechanism of Jboss and other Java applications - you place a jar with an optional Manifest in a specific location, everything else is taken care for you. What is wrong with using the application name ( Firefox ) instead of {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384} ?

All I wanted to do is write few small extensions to get my addressbook in vcard, sync the data between few computers I use and post to a weblog. For all this I spent far more time figuring out all this crappy and unjustified framework complexity than writing the real code ( which in some cases turned to be very trivial ).

Contrast Java manifests and mozilla package RDF. They serve the same purpose - provide metadata about a certain pacakge. RDF is a magic specification that can instantly turn something trivial into something you can write a book about or make you feel smart. The concept is great - a consistent database storing triplets ( i.e. properties associated with a target object ), used consistently everywhere - from tree UI to mail to addressbook to bookmarks. Another good example on how most XML dialects are as good as assembly language.

So the question is how to simplify this - and get to a point where you can just write your script, without dealing with the unnecesary complexity.Â
Â
Posted by costin at December 25, 2004 11:06 AM