Page 1 of 1

Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 00:00
by pintorama
Brief is an RSS feed extension. The proper version for Basilisk, and included in Classic Add-on Archives is 2.4.0. It has worked flawlessly since I migrated to Basilisk. What happens, with the new version of Basilisk, is that it removes the icon that appears at the top, with all the other active icons or, if you have it, the add-on bar at the bottom. Thus, you can not see your feeds, even though the feeds are still loading. I have tried various ways to preserve the icon, bring it down into "customize" feature, so I can then bring it back up after installing the new version. I've tried reinstalling Brief. Nothing seems to work. This is a vital extension for me so I hope this can be fixed. The icon is needed for user functionality of Brief. I am going to have to stay with the old version until this is resolved. Thanks.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 01:41
by coffeebreak
Brief 2.4.0 is a hybrid xul/webextension, that could be why it broke, given this.

But the toolbar button shows up fine in Brief 2.3.0,
which is in CAA on Brief's versions page: caa:addon/brief/versions

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 02:05
by pintorama
I actually thought about this possibility after I posted. If you look at the Brief version history, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/ , 2.5.4 was released on Nov. 25, 2017 and, as stated, it is compatible with web extensions. So, I think that's part of the problem. At the same time, this version worked flawlessly with other version of Basilisk until the web extensions experiment was abandoned and, apparently, unwound somehow. I guess the question becomes: Can this be addressed in some fashion, or is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 02:48
by Nigaikaze
pintorama wrote:Can this be addressed in some fashion, or is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?
This is the way things are going to be, for the reasons in the link that coffeebreak posted.

The only fashion in which to address this (in this specific case) would be for someone to fork Brief and apply whatever features/fixes were added between 2.4.0 and 2.3.0 without adding any of the WebExtension code.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 03:24
by pintorama
I figured this would be the answer. I will wait to see if Moonchild pops in, to offer any sense of reassurance that this could be worked out at the Basilisk level, as this problem is affecting more than one extensions already. If nothing positive seems on the horizon, with genuine and great reluctance, because I feel this is a terrific project, with great people, I will have to leave Basilisk for Waterfox, which does not display this problem.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 03:36
by Nigaikaze
pintorama wrote:I will wait to see if Moonchild pops in, to offer any sense of reassurance that this could be worked out at the Basilisk level
Moonchild wrote:[Removing WebExtension support] is not a decision that was made lightly, and won't be reconsidered.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=21298&start=20#p161691

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 03:53
by coffeebreak
pintorama wrote:is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?

I don't know if every hybrid extension will have problems, but my gut guess is that it will depend on the extension.


Returning to the original issue...
coffeebreak wrote:But the toolbar button shows up fine in Brief 2.3.0,
which is in CAA on Brief's versions page: caa:addon/brief/versions
Have you tried Brief 2.3.0, as recommended?

The release notes for v2.4.0 (see CAA, Brief's versions page) indicate that all changes from v2.3.0 to v2.4.0 were merely preparation for the transition to webextensions - i.e. no fixes or improvements to v2.4.0, therefore none lost by rolling back a version. Please consider trying it.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 04:39
by pintorama
I will give 2.3 a try tomorrow. I didn't understand what coffeebreak meant by caa:addon/brief/versions and then how to get there. I imagine it is likely to work I'll let you know.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 04:57
by coffeebreak
pintorama wrote:I didn't understand what coffeebreak meant by caa:addon/brief/versions and then how to get there.
It's an internal link in the Classic Add-ons Archive (CAA).

It can be accessed if the extension is installed (which I thought it was, since you referred to it in your original post and seemed familiar with its contents).

You might want to read here, the paragraph under the heading "Secondly, check the archives".

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 13:55
by Nigaikaze
You can also find Brief 2.3.0 here:

http://legacycollector.org/firefox-addo ... index.html

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Posted: 2019-02-13, 18:04
by pintorama
Brief 2.30, does in fact work and brings back full functionality. Thanks to all. A overarching comment, made in the spirit of contribution, not criticism. I am completely confident the decision to abandon the WebExtensions experiment was not reached lightly. I'd expect nothing less from this development team. But when it comes to hybrid WebExtensions, like Brief, my central question is this: Is the lack of functionality of hybrid extensions something that was anticipated or something that has turned out to be an unintended consequence? If it is the former, then this was considered in the deliberation process. If it is the latter, perhaps revisiting the topic of hybrid extensions should be considered.