New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

addon modifications for electrolysis #24

Open
buggyj opened this Issue Oct 2, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@buggyj
Contributor

buggyj commented Oct 2, 2014

tiddlyfox will have to be substantially restructured to work with the new firefox multi-process architecture.
Doomsday (so to speak) has been pencilled in for firefox 36, which will be release around Feb.

@Jermolene

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Jermolene

Jermolene Oct 7, 2014

Member

Ouch. How will TiddlyClip fare? I'm nervous that TiddlyFox needs a very complete overhaul; it was written with cobbled together example code that must now be very out of date.

Member

Jermolene commented Oct 7, 2014

Ouch. How will TiddlyClip fare? I'm nervous that TiddlyFox needs a very complete overhaul; it was written with cobbled together example code that must now be very out of date.

@buggyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buggyj

buggyj Oct 7, 2014

Contributor

The architectural changes for tiddlyfox will involve splitting the functionality between framescipts (a copy will need to be installed in each tab) and a background script, probability in each window. Inteactions with pages go in the framescript and the background handles interaction with the file system. There needs to be a bit of extra logic for interprocess comms and some boilerplate code for software updates.
The addition to the tools menu would need to be handled programmatically (or just removed).

At present there are issues with updating framescripts - the restartless mechanism was badly thought out, and at present doesn't work with framescripts.

The above assume that you would used the 'low level' apis, there is also the addon sdk which is abstracted from these details somewhat, but I don't know if it has the functionality that tiddlyfox needs (and I don't think it works with the new architecture yet).

Tiddlyclip already uses framescipts, but some (more) of the functionality will have to move from the background script to the framescripts - whether the apis I used will work with the multiprocess architecture is not clear - there is no documentation for this. In general the lack of (relevant) documentation is a real pain.

Contributor

buggyj commented Oct 7, 2014

The architectural changes for tiddlyfox will involve splitting the functionality between framescipts (a copy will need to be installed in each tab) and a background script, probability in each window. Inteactions with pages go in the framescript and the background handles interaction with the file system. There needs to be a bit of extra logic for interprocess comms and some boilerplate code for software updates.
The addition to the tools menu would need to be handled programmatically (or just removed).

At present there are issues with updating framescripts - the restartless mechanism was badly thought out, and at present doesn't work with framescripts.

The above assume that you would used the 'low level' apis, there is also the addon sdk which is abstracted from these details somewhat, but I don't know if it has the functionality that tiddlyfox needs (and I don't think it works with the new architecture yet).

Tiddlyclip already uses framescipts, but some (more) of the functionality will have to move from the background script to the framescripts - whether the apis I used will work with the multiprocess architecture is not clear - there is no documentation for this. In general the lack of (relevant) documentation is a real pain.

@Jermolene

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Jermolene

Jermolene Oct 7, 2014

Member

There needs to be a bit of extra logic for interprocess comms

What's the preferred mechanism for a frame script to talk to a background script?

The addition to the tools menu would need to be handled programmatically (or just removed)

Removed, I think. I would like to add a preferences/options window, though.

Member

Jermolene commented Oct 7, 2014

There needs to be a bit of extra logic for interprocess comms

What's the preferred mechanism for a frame script to talk to a background script?

The addition to the tools menu would need to be handled programmatically (or just removed)

Removed, I think. I would like to add a preferences/options window, though.

@buggyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buggyj

buggyj Oct 8, 2014

Contributor

There is a messagemanger module for handing comms between framescripts and background
To add options, and be compatible with fennec, we have to use inline options:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Extensions/Options

Contributor

buggyj commented Oct 8, 2014

There is a messagemanger module for handing comms between framescripts and background
To add options, and be compatible with fennec, we have to use inline options:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Extensions/Options

@buggyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buggyj

buggyj Nov 22, 2014

Contributor

I have had a look at the addon sdk and feel that tiddlyfox could be rewritten to use the addon sdk apis. - the advantage is that this should (hopefully)make tiddlyfox compatible with pre-electrolysis and electrolysis versions of the browser and also allow it to work with the android version.

Contributor

buggyj commented Nov 22, 2014

I have had a look at the addon sdk and feel that tiddlyfox could be rewritten to use the addon sdk apis. - the advantage is that this should (hopefully)make tiddlyfox compatible with pre-electrolysis and electrolysis versions of the browser and also allow it to work with the android version.

@Jermolene

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Jermolene

Jermolene Nov 22, 2014

Member

Hi @buggyj that would be pretty good. I'm hoping to pick up TiddlyFox over the next few weeks - the impending electrolysis release is a useful spur :)

Member

Jermolene commented Nov 22, 2014

Hi @buggyj that would be pretty good. I'm hoping to pick up TiddlyFox over the next few weeks - the impending electrolysis release is a useful spur :)

@buggyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buggyj

buggyj Jan 15, 2015

Contributor

The latest from electrolysis is that it will be after ff version 40 - towards the end of the year
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Meetings/2015-01-08

Contributor

buggyj commented Jan 15, 2015

The latest from electrolysis is that it will be after ff version 40 - towards the end of the year
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Meetings/2015-01-08

@Jermolene

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Jermolene

Jermolene Feb 8, 2015

Member

Hi @buggyj phew, that's a relief 😄, gives us a bit more time to prepare

Member

Jermolene commented Feb 8, 2015

Hi @buggyj phew, that's a relief 😄, gives us a bit more time to prepare

@buggyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buggyj

buggyj Jan 26, 2016

Contributor

@Jermolene I am just finishing off the needed electrolysis changes for tiddlyclip, and will shortly have a look at what needs to be done for tiddlyfox.

Contributor

buggyj commented Jan 26, 2016

@Jermolene I am just finishing off the needed electrolysis changes for tiddlyclip, and will shortly have a look at what needs to be done for tiddlyfox.

@buggyj buggyj closed this Jan 26, 2016

@buggyj buggyj reopened this Jan 26, 2016

@gerv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerv

gerv Jun 30, 2017

If a rewrite is being done, it also needs to take account of the fact that from 57 (in November) Firefox will only support WebExtensions: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions .

Can the developers of TiddlyFox let us know their plans here?

gerv commented Jun 30, 2017

If a rewrite is being done, it also needs to take account of the fact that from 57 (in November) Firefox will only support WebExtensions: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions .

Can the developers of TiddlyFox let us know their plans here?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment