Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Forum for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: satrow


User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby Sajadi » Sun, 26 Nov 2017, 19:09

As webextensions make progress and additional API are for sure over time introduced, that would for sure require someone who back-ports all additions - which is as i imagine a massive and complex task.

Personally i do not see that happening without someone who would help Moonchild big-time with it.

User avatar
ketmar
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue, 28 Jul 2015, 11:10
Location: Earth

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby ketmar » Fri, 01 Dec 2017, 05:53

i can't see anything wrong with uMatrix and Pale Moon. what GH did is removed travis-ci testing for old ff versions, that's all. Pale Moon app id wasn't removed from install.rdf, no XUL support code was removed, and i just updated my uMatrix with `git pull` (as i'm doing usually), and nothing is broken: all blocking rules are stil working, UI is here and fully functional, options page is not broken at all.

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: unseasonably HOT upstate NY
Contact:

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby gracious1 » Fri, 01 Dec 2017, 07:38

ketmar wrote:i can't see anything wrong with uMatrix and Pale Moon.


Which release are you talking about? I tried to install 1.1.12 in PM 27.7.0a2 (64-bit) (2017-11-23) and I got the expected error message:
Image

I downloaded the XPI file; there is no install.rdf. Looks like he read your post and removed the XUL/XPCOM code??

(BTW, did you mean Pale Moon or Basilisk?)
Image“Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans.” ― Allen Saunders

User avatar
ketmar
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue, 28 Jul 2015, 11:10
Location: Earth

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby ketmar » Fri, 01 Dec 2017, 07:52

i'm not following releases, and not using published xpis. i am using cloned git repository, and i'm building xpis directrly from the source. right now it is uMatrix 1.1.13b0, updated several hours ago. works like a charm.

and i meant Pale Moon, which will be ported to new platform anyway, as Moonchild said. it doesn't matter much, tho, as both browsers are using the same underlying framework, so making uMatrix UI working will be as easy as:
1. either patch uMatrix XUL overlay (several lines of code), or
2. add XUL toolbar to Basilisk, so uMatrix overlay will work (can be done with another extension, no uMatrix patches required).


as i said, what GH did is stopped publishing xpis for XUL-based framework. all the code is still there, and Pale Moon (XUL, actually) support is not removed. anyone is free to build correct xpi from uMatrix source code.

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby Sun42 » Sat, 02 Dec 2017, 15:12

Sajadi wrote:Personally i do not see that happening without someone who would help Moonchild big-time with it.


True dat, but this will be the main problem in the future (same with waterfox) - backporting is difficult to do for one/few-man/men projects, and in the future mozilla won't check for for compatibility xul/we anymore. Plus when esr runs out, even more deveopment will stop and legacy addons might be (semi)hidden or even removed from amo - so that just sticking to legacy addons will be even more difficult.

Feature request: With we not fully supported, could the we extensions be marked in the addon list (the inverse of the "legacy" ff56 does)? ... at least then it would be easier to track down problems with we code that isn't completely supported on basilisk.

coffeebreak
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 04:51
Location: U.S.

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby coffeebreak » Sat, 02 Dec 2017, 16:25

Sun42 wrote:could the we extensions be marked in the addon list (the inverse of the "legacy" ff56 does)? ... at least then it would be easier to track down problems with we code that isn't completely supported on basilisk.

PM's add-ons site has a validator tool to which you can upload an extension to get this information.

Or as an alternative, you could look inside the add-on with an archiver (7-zip, bandizip etc.) and check for the presence of manifest.json in the root directory, which would indicate that it's webex. See https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=12503#p89424

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby Sun42 » Sat, 02 Dec 2017, 17:14

coffeebreak wrote:
Sun42 wrote:could the we extensions be marked in the addon list (the inverse of the "legacy" ff56 does)? ... at least then it would be easier to track down problems with we code that isn't completely supported on basilisk.

PM's add-ons site has a validator tool to which you can upload an extension to get this information.

Or as an alternative, you could look inside the add-on with an archiver (7-zip, bandizip etc.) and check for the presence of manifest.json in the root directory, which would indicate that it's webex. See https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=12503#p89424


Thanks, though these options aren't exactly without a hassle :-p ... it's probab quicker just to look at the amo site version history, most authors specify the switvh to we or you can look at the ff compability version. Stil, a "this is we and might now work on basilisk" badge in the addon manager would be nice :-o

dark_moon

Re: Will Basilisk support fully WebExtension support?

Unread postby dark_moon » Fri, 05 Jan 2018, 01:22

Any news on this?
Even the 2017-12-28 update doesnt work with uMatrix, Decentraleyes or other.
Maybe because of Firefox 57+ as minimum. In my opinion Basilisk should support that kind of addons


Return to “Basilisk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yandex [Bot] and 1 guest