Tickets :: Comment on [#2565] Firefox 3 bookmarks extension

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .__..___..__..___. . [__] _/ \| \|[__ \ / \| \|./__.\|__\[___ \/
Comment	>> Yes, but I started cleaning up the whole extension which is obviously > >> more work than just getting the XPI working. > > > > OK, before you do anything drastic there - I've been playing with a > new design. Yes, I keep rewriting lots of things, but I guess that's > what happens to hobbyists. I've enjoyed learning everything I have, > anyways. ;-) I originally wanted to extend the browser's bookmarks > datasource to aggregate in the Trean bookmarks. I gave up on that > pretty quickly because it seemed too complex. > > > > Then lately I was polishing the extension, and I got tired of all the > functionality (especially user-interface) I was duplicating. I've > gotten through some initial learning-curve problems I had with the > datasource before, so now I'm experimenting with it. If I do it > right, I can transparently and automatically get all the > functionality normal bookmarks have. This would be very elegant, > powerful, and ultimately easy (I hope!) And unless Mozilla makes any > big changes in future versions, it would "fit" better (UI-wise) and > be more likely to work without changes, in newer versions of the > browser. > > > >> > >> But the layout I use is the following: imp/extension.php is providing > >> the XPI and the XPI is built from files in imp/templates/extension/. > >> The layout in this directory is the same like in the XPI to ease > >> maintenance. But it doesn't have to. I attach an extensions.php the > >> simply takes the directory one-to-one, in real life we need some > >> processing, i.e. adding the correct URLs, etc. > > > > extension.php looks nice. It will be cool to see Trean serve up its > own extension. > > > >> > >> This is why I don't agree with your approach of having the > >> extension(s) in a separate module or even on the mozilla site. The > >> idea is to have one extension per (Horde) site. 1) because users > >> don't have to configure any site settings like URLs etc., 2) users > >> can have separate extensions for each Horde site, and 3) users can > >> get extension updates automatically from the Horde sites, depending > >> on the IMP/Trean version they run. With "Horde sites" I obviously > >> don't mean horde.org, but sites that have Horde installed. > > > > These are good ideas!
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries