Slashdot Mirror
Developing Firefox Extensions with GNU/Linux
QT writes "Ars Technica has a lengthy but useful introduction to
developing Firefox extensions with GNU/Linux. This guide comes hot on the heels of the RC for Beta 1 of Firefox.
The article is a little more thorough than necessary, but I can't complain about anything that spurs Firefox development." From the article: "What can you do with a Firefox Extension? Firefox extensions can modify the Firefox user interface. This includes adding buttons to tool bars and menus; changing fonts, colors, and icons; capturing events in the client interface like page loads and clicks; and modifying web pages after the browser loads them and before the user sees them. All of this functionality comes with the aspect-oriented facility of overlays. Extensions also have as much access to the file system as the user running Firefox. Extensions can add protocol handlers, hooking actions to URLs like icq://, aim://, or stantz://. Extensions have UniversalXPConnect privileges, allowing them to harness any XPCOM component. Firefox comes with a rich library of XPCOM components that permit your extension to drive very low-level functionality like sockets from Javascript. You can also augment the XPCOM library with Firefox extensions by adding Javascript, linkable libraries, or XPIDL."
Where's my bittorrent:// protocol??!?!
I would love to simply do a bittorrent from firefox. I think that'd spur alot more users and make it easier to... um... *LEGAL* download torrents... (like knoppix, fedora, etc.)
Bring on the torrents!!!
Firefox extensions are are useful and powerful tools when used correctly, yet have the ability to easily become malicious and destructive if the user doesn't pay attention.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like ActiveX. While the main intent for the two is a little different (browser tweaking vs. client-side scripting & server interaction), both require users to make informed decisions. People going on about how Firefox is so much safer because it doesn't support ActiveX might need to consider dropping that argument. As Firefox's market share grows, so will the number of websites that advertise Firefox plugins, and unaware users will be just as susceptible to malware and viruses as they were with IE.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I realize that there are some differences, such as the fact that the red carpet is only rolled out for extensions the user trusts, but... when you advertise Firefox to dummies, your trusting users will BE dummies!
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
They don't have full access to the local machine, they only have the user's access to the local machine. There's an important difference.
Simple: ActiveX was and is often used by websites to extend website functionality. For instance, Microsoft uses it to implement the functionality of its Windows Update website. Trend Micro uses it to implement the functionality of its house call anti virus service. And so on. Of course there isn't anything inherently bad about it, both examples are very useful. It would be very insecure, though, to allow untrusted sites to extend their functionality this way, and it would have been very bad if ActiveX had been a standard repertoire of web design in the way that Flash is, for example.
Firefox extensions are quite different. They typically extend the functionality of the browser, independent of the web sites you might use. I say typically because there are counterexamples, for instance extensions designed to make working with Wikipedia easier. But this is the exception, not the norm. Firefox extensions aren't "meant" to be used by a lot of different web site, and people would find it quite strange if they were required to install an extension for viewing just one web site.
So maybe the technology is similar (I wouldn't know), the way they are typically used, and were designed and meant to be used are quite different.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
These are a few sites that I found helpful. Some are a little old but I got something out of all of them.
c reate-firefox-extensions/
i on_tutorial.php
p ackaging/extensions.html
/
http://www.xulplanet.com/
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Dev_:_Extensions
http://roachfiend.com/archives/2004/12/08/how-to-
http://businesslogs.com/technology/firefox_extens
http://www.bengoodger.com/software/mb/extensions/
http://mozilla-firefox-extension-dev.blogspot.com
http://books.mozdev.org/index.html
http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/gettingstarted.html
Of course another good way to learn about extensions is to download a few and look at the code. That has probably been the biggest help to me once the tutorials, etc. gave me the basic idea of what is going on.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Or not so important, because Windows users generally run with administration privledges, and that's where the virus problem lies.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
When should you use a Firefox extension?
Only when you're EXTENDING FIREFOX.
If your website requires an extension (or, for that matter, ActiveX) to work, you're simply coding it incorrectly.
Possible exceptions includes Windows Update, but even then, Microsoft coded that as part of the OS in XP, so the web portal really isn't necessary.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
XPCOM extensions for Firefox are compiled binary machine language files, which have just as much access to your system as ActiveX controls do. Firefox XPCOM extensions are no more secure than ActiveX controls. Binary ActiveX and XPCOM controls are useful for situations where you need to do things that JavaScript doesn't support, like shaping the window of a pie menu (an open source ActiveX component, that you can download the source code if you like).
Internet Explorer has something similar to the way you can write Firefox extensions in JavaScript and UIL. But that's a totally different thing than binary ActiveX controls and behaviors, and it severly restricts what you can do.
You can script trustable ActiveX controls for Internet Explorer called "Dynamic HTML Behavior Components", using JavaScript (or any other ActiveX compatible scripting languages), XML and DHTML.
For example, user interface components like JavaScript Pie Menus for Internet Explorer or the Run On Sentence dynamic text animation style run with the same restrictions as JavaScript in the browser, so they can't access files or shape popup windows. (Also open source).
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
As I said, though: webpages could tell IE (at least used to) where to download an ActiveX control. If the control was not already installed, IE would automatically download and install the control from the specified source. In firefox, the page must me whitelisted before extensions could be downloaded. Can someone tell me if IE has changed to the whitelist model yet? Last I heard, they were even maintaining a list of malicious ActiveX controls. This seemed inance to me, as there is most likely more malicious junk out there than truly useful controls.