Extension Source Explorer
Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof
Extension Source Explorer
There is one excellent developer tool that I always wanted to have in Pale Moon, but there were three obstacles: it was WebExtension, it used ES6 features not yet supported by Pale Moon, and it was free, but not open source.
I'm talking about CRX Viewer from Rob Wu, the add-on that allows to explore the source code of extensions, themes and language packs right in the browser tab, without having to save them to disk and unpack, with advanced search, syntax highlighting and other useful features.
I contacted the author about the license, he kindly agreed to release his add-on under MPL-2.0, and I managed to cope with everything else.
So, now I'm glad to introduce Extension Source Explorer, the classic XUL add-on that brings the power of the CRX Viewer engine to Pale Moon users. Questions, suggestions and bug reports are welcome as always.
I'm talking about CRX Viewer from Rob Wu, the add-on that allows to explore the source code of extensions, themes and language packs right in the browser tab, without having to save them to disk and unpack, with advanced search, syntax highlighting and other useful features.
I contacted the author about the license, he kindly agreed to release his add-on under MPL-2.0, and I managed to cope with everything else.
So, now I'm glad to introduce Extension Source Explorer, the classic XUL add-on that brings the power of the CRX Viewer engine to Pale Moon users. Questions, suggestions and bug reports are welcome as always.
Re: Extension Source Explorer
It might seem ridiculous, but I found that Tobin intentionally made changes to the layout of the Pale Moon Add-ons site just to prevent automatic detection of the latest version of the extensions used by Extension Source Explorer.
Will there be any public explanations for this weird action?
Will there be any public explanations for this weird action?
Re: Extension Source Explorer
Could you probably provide an official API to get the latest version of the extension based on its slug?
Re: Extension Source Explorer
That would be a no. I will not open the site and server up to extensions, scripts, or programs that can abuse it. This policy has a precedent.
Also, question.. How can you claim this to be a "classic xul add-on" when it is obviously bootstrap and contains no real xul beyond Firefox 4+ Add-ons Options?
Also, question.. How can you claim this to be a "classic xul add-on" when it is obviously bootstrap and contains no real xul beyond Firefox 4+ Add-ons Options?
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on 2018-03-06, 16:43, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Extension Source Explorer
I assure you that my extension can't abuse the site in any way, as it does not perform any additional or unusual requests. And I hope you understand that the actions taken only complicate the navigation, but can't prevent the possibility to explore extensions using the context menu.
So maybe you could reconsider your position and not fight with what is not really harmful? Please don't answer immediately.
So maybe you could reconsider your position and not fight with what is not really harmful? Please don't answer immediately.
Off-topic:
I think nowdays both overlay and bootstrap add-ons can safely be called classic XUL extensions. However, I will not insist, since I'm not sure this topic worth a discussion.
I think nowdays both overlay and bootstrap add-ons can safely be called classic XUL extensions. However, I will not insist, since I'm not sure this topic worth a discussion.
Last edited by JustOff on 2018-03-06, 18:17, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 827
- Joined: 2017-10-10, 21:20
Re: Extension Source Explorer
If you want to see the code making the extensions work, why can you not open the XPI file and look inside?
-
- Pale Moon guru
- Posts: 35637
- Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
- Location: Motala, SE
Re: Extension Source Explorer
I'm stepping in here to clarify:JustOff wrote:I assure you that my extension can't abuse the site in any way, as it does not perform any additional or unusual requests.
The add-ons site runs on a server and is already seeing a lot of traffic to handle the update checks from every Pale Moon browser out there. Even so, this is relatively low volume.
Aside from that, it serves updates and downloads of extensions. Normally, an extension download and update would serve one (and only one) file transfer request per user per extension.
What your extension does is download the extension each time the "view" function is used. This is neither intended use of the add-ons server, nor is it within the normal realm of a single download per actually installed extension version per user. The traffic caused by it is therefore not only a-typical but also undesired and abusive from a server point of view.
There is no reason to supply an API to serve these kinds of requests either as it falls outside of the scope of the add-ons site, which is there to provide regular downloads and updates to Pale Moon browser users.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: Extension Source Explorer
Well, now I understand your reasons, thank you for taking the time to explain them in detail. I consider this as a request to remove support for Pale Moon Add-ons site from Extension Source Explorer, and I will satisfy it with all due respect.
UPD: Extension Source Explorer 1.1.2 has been released to disable support of Pale Moon Add-ons Site.
UPD: Extension Source Explorer 1.1.2 has been released to disable support of Pale Moon Add-ons Site.
Off-topic:
PS: I can not but point that the real cause you forced to impose these restrictions is the imperfect design of the add-ons update system. I have enough argument to assert this, because on my main job I manage a website with monthly traffic of more than 50TB. You know how to contact me, if you decide to use my help.
PS: I can not but point that the real cause you forced to impose these restrictions is the imperfect design of the add-ons update system. I have enough argument to assert this, because on my main job I manage a website with monthly traffic of more than 50TB. You know how to contact me, if you decide to use my help.
Last edited by JustOff on 2018-03-06, 22:28, edited 1 time in total.