Feedback on parts of new Add-on Developer Hub
Justin Scott
If you follow AMO news at all, you've probably heard about our upcoming
developer site -- the one-stop shop for add-on developers to find out
why they'd want to make an add-on, how to make an add-on, and manage
their add-ons on AMO.
We're getting close to release of this site at the end of the month, and
we have a good bit of content ready, so I'd like to ask for any feedback
you have, mainly on the specific sections mentioned below.
* How-to Library
This section has tutorials, videos, articles, and other resources of
interest to add-on developers on various topics broken into categories.
Any suggestions you have for new articles worthy of inclusion here would
be most welcome, as well as any comments on the articles we've included.
* API & Language References
This is a list of API documentation and is more for official
documentation than walkthroughs and tutorials.
* Add-on Policies
We've had policies scattered across AMO and our Editors' wiki for years,
so this is our much-needed section where all of our policies will live.
They are broken into different areas and will be kept up to date, with
the last date of modification on every page.
Almost all of the policies and their content have been around for quite
some time, but several sections, like the Review Process, were only on
the wiki.
The only new policy additions are:
* disallow synchronous XHR as it freezes the UI and causes problems when
not online
* disallow chrome-privileged update systems (always enforced but was not
written anywhere)
* No Surprises policy formally added, with modifications. Please don't
give feedback on this here, rather, Nick will be starting a separate
thread on this for discussion.
Much of the site is still not quite ready, so although you can give
feedback on other parts, it would probably be best to wait until those
parts are finished.
Thanks for any help!
Justin
John J. Barton
.....
> The only new policy additions are:
> * disallow chrome-privileged update systems (always enforced but was not
> written anywhere)
I'd like know more about this one, since I am currently designing an
update system for Firebug extensions.
jjb
Justin Scott
system bypasses that requirement. It's the same reason we don't allow
add-ons to set their own updateURL on AMO.
Parts of an extension that don't have chrome privileges, like an ad
filterset, are fine to be updated remotely.
Justin
John J. Barton
> We require extension updates to be reviewed by an editor, and an update
> system bypasses that requirement. It's the same reason we don't allow
> add-ons to set their own updateURL on AMO.
Thanks; do you know how it is that add-ons from amo know where to go for
update if there is no updateURL?
Or more directly to my issue: I need to disable updates for a similar
reason and I had planned to remove the updateURL. But I need to disable
updates from amo-hosted Firebug extensions as well. Is there a different
way to do this?
Just to give some background, this is for Firebug Certified Testing,
where extensions will be tested and digitally signed by the testing
program. Users will be assured that the extensions they install under
the certification are the tested ones. Hence we don't want updates to
break the chain. I think a solution like this would be a big win for amo
as well as other extension systems.
jjb
Justin Scott
Justin
Ken Saunders
Ken
-----------
Justin Scott
https://preview.addons.mozilla.org/developers
Ken Saunders wrote:
> Can you share the URL to the staging site?
>
> Ken
> -----------
>
> On Sep 16, 6:50 pm, Justin Scott<flig...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> If you follow AMO news at all, you've probably heard about our upcoming
>> developer site -- the one-stop shop for add-on developers to find out
>> why they'd want to make an add-on, how to make an add-on, and manage
>> their add-ons on AMO.
>>
>> We're getting close to release of this site at the end of the month, and
>> we have a good bit of content ready, so I'd like to ask for any feedback
>> you have, mainly on the specific sections mentioned below.
>>
>> * How-to Library
>> This section has tutorials, videos, articles, and other resources of
>> interest to add-on developers on various topics broken into categories.
>> Any suggestions you have for new articles worthy of inclusion here would
>> be most welcome, as well as any comments on the articles we've included.
>>
>> * API& Language References
Ken Saunders
It would sure be neato if a link to the Thunderbird section could be
provided on the Hub's home page and have its own page ( it's just one
more page ;) ). We all know that we could use more Thunderbird add-ons
and perhaps the extra exposure might spark someone's interest.
It would throw off the symmetry that you have on the front page, but
there's plenty of room for it.
If by chance someone does come looking for Thunderbird resources, they
won't find them until they follow the 4th link in the Documentation
drop down. If they go right to Getting Started, they won't see it at
all. The same applies for mobile.
It just seems to me that the name Add-on Developer Hub is a broad
ranging name and less specific to one particular Mozilla product. If
it isn't meant to be, then perhaps it should be named Firefox Add-on
Developer Hub? I know that you can dig my point. It would just be
great to see new development for other Mozilla product add-ons as well
(especially mobile) and there's no doubt that AMO can bring attention
to that need better than any other source.
That shiny new Add-on Developer Hub logo would look really cool at the
top of the page.
Can a link to the current add-ons for mobile hosted on AMO be added to
the thunderbird-mobile page (or the Mobile page, wink, wink)?
I don't believe that many people are even aware that they're on AMO,
and as it is recommended, a lot can be learned about writing add-ons
by looking at existing ones.
In any event, those are just my opinions and I won't crumble
psychologically if none my ideas/suggestions aren't implemented.
I'm anxious to see more and it's great to see all that's been put into
improving AMO over the past year (or so?).
AMO used to be very static. A quick in and out type of site, and, it
didn't feel too open or welcoming to developers. I'm not a developer
(just a contributor), but I play one on TV. :)
Now AMO is very interactive with lots to do and it feels much more
Mozilla-esque (open, welcoming, and participatory).
AMO is my 3rd most visited site. Just 99 visits behind Google.
Ken
__________________
On Sep 16, 6:50 pm, Justin Scott <flig...@mozilla.com> wrote:
Justin Scott
> Awesome work!
>
> It would sure be neato if a link to the Thunderbird section could be
> provided on the Hub's home page and have its own page ( it's just one
> more page ;) ). We all know that we could use more Thunderbird add-ons
> and perhaps the extra exposure might spark someone's interest.
> It would throw off the symmetry that you have on the front page, but
> there's plenty of room for it.
> If by chance someone does come looking for Thunderbird resources, they
> won't find them until they follow the 4th link in the Documentation
> drop down. If they go right to Getting Started, they won't see it at
> all. The same applies for mobile.
> It just seems to me that the name Add-on Developer Hub is a broad
> ranging name and less specific to one particular Mozilla product. If
> it isn't meant to be, then perhaps it should be named Firefox Add-on
> Developer Hub? I know that you can dig my point. It would just be
> great to see new development for other Mozilla product add-ons as well
> (especially mobile) and there's no doubt that AMO can bring attention
> to that need better than any other source.
>
I definitely understand your point. It boils down to a few things. As
you mention below, we've done a ton this year and have quite a number of
things left to do before we feel the site is on par with where it needs
to be. All of AMO's paid development and management resources have a
primary responsibility to Firefox add-ons as it is *by far* the largest
user base and add-on ecosystem. Because of limited time and resources,
we make sure the site remains useful to other applications, but spending
time on features that would only impact those applications is not a
priority in relation to our other tasks.
We would welcome community members to work on the site to improve the
experience for other applications, and at some point if we have more
time, may do this ourselves. But right now, with the ever-growing
competitive browser environment, I don't see that happening any time soon.
I did try to make our policies less Firefox-specific when reviewing them
for the hub, in almost all cases changing "Firefox" to "applications".
On pages like Getting Started, if you just change "Firefox" to
"Thunderbird" everything remains true. We used to be really vague in
AMO's copy so that everything would remain true no matter the
application, but we found out it just confused people and made for
crappy copy.
I would certainly not object to application-specific modifications to
the hub in future releases if someone were to volunteer to work on them.
> That shiny new Add-on Developer Hub logo would look really cool at the
> top of the page.
>
Surprisingly, it doesn't. We originally put it there, but found that
when it's so small it doesn't look great and in fact looks like floating
pancakes. We put it at the bottom where the AMO logo normally is because
it can be much larger.
> Can a link to the current add-ons for mobile hosted on AMO be added to
> the thunderbird-mobile page (or the Mobile page, wink, wink)?
> I don't believe that many people are even aware that they're on AMO,
> and as it is recommended, a lot can be learned about writing add-ons
> by looking at existing ones.
>
With this release, separate from the developer hub, we are adding
full/official mobile support for Fennec's upcoming launch. The mobile
team has requested a number of changes to the site to expose mobile
add-ons more that we'll be implementing.
> In any event, those are just my opinions and I won't crumble
> psychologically if none my ideas/suggestions aren't implemented.
>
> I'm anxious to see more and it's great to see all that's been put into
> improving AMO over the past year (or so?).
> AMO used to be very static. A quick in and out type of site, and, it
> didn't feel too open or welcoming to developers. I'm not a developer
> (just a contributor), but I play one on TV. :)
> Now AMO is very interactive with lots to do and it feels much more
> Mozilla-esque (open, welcoming, and participatory).
> AMO is my 3rd most visited site. Just 99 visits behind Google.
Thanks :) We're pretty excited about it too.
>
> Ken
> __________________
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 6:50 pm, Justin Scott<flig...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> If you follow AMO news at all, you've probably heard about our upcoming
>> developer site -- the one-stop shop for add-on developers to find out
>> why they'd want to make an add-on, how to make an add-on, and manage
>> their add-ons on AMO.
>>
>> We're getting close to release of this site at the end of the month, and
>> we have a good bit of content ready, so I'd like to ask for any feedback
>> you have, mainly on the specific sections mentioned below.
>>
>> * How-to Library
>> This section has tutorials, videos, articles, and other resources of
>> interest to add-on developers on various topics broken into categories.
>> Any suggestions you have for new articles worthy of inclusion here would
>> be most welcome, as well as any comments on the articles we've included.
>>
>> * API& Language References
Ken Saunders
(wannabe) perspective.
The prioritization makes perfect sense especially considering the
upcoming support for add-ons in Chrome.
I immediately fell in love with Firefox when I first discovered it and
then learned about add-ons for it (now I'm a damn junkie), but that
was in 2004. Now most people expect their browser to cook breakfast
for them (yet magically remain fast) so for competitive reasons, and
for the benefit of Firefox users and Mozilla, shoring up AMO,
encouraging people to develop add-ons, and providing easier ways for
them to do that just makes perfect sense.
About the Add-ons Forum.
Do you plan on it/them being something like the Extensions and Themes
sections on mozillaZine for developers to get help, announce releases,
report issues, etc?
Any timeline on when that will go live?
Justin thanks for taking the time to provide a thorough reply.
I really appreciate it.
Ken
--------------
Justin Scott
Technical Discussions
* Extension Development
** JavaScript
** XUL, XBL, RDF, Templates
** XPCOM, XPConnect, IDL
** Fennec Add-ons
** Thunderbird Add-ons
* Theme Development
* Other Add-on Development (Dictionaries, Search Providers, etc.)
* Development Tools & Debugging
Business Discussions
* Marketing & Hosting
* Monetization
* Jobs
AMO Discussions
* AMO Roadmap & Releases
* AMO Feedback
* Add-on Reviews
General
* Introductions
* Add-on Release Announcements
* Add-on Localization
* Events & Meet-ups
* Forum Concerns
We plan on these being the primary avenue for extension development
support, as well as a bunch of other add-on topics.
Justin
John J. Barton
> The forums will go live with the Developer Hub on the 29th and will have:
Four forums or 20?
How will someone decide between these forums and mozilla forums?
jjb
...
Justin Scott
AMO, tied in with your AMO account.
John J. Barton
How will someone decide between mozilla.dev.extensions, mozilla.dev.xul,
mozilla.dev.xpcom and so forth, and those below?
jjb
Justin Dolske
>> That shiny new Add-on Developer Hub logo would look really cool at the
>> top of the page.
>
> Surprisingly, it doesn't. We originally put it there, but found that
> when it's so small it doesn't look great and in fact looks like floating
> pancakes.
I don't see what the problem is.
Mmm, pancakes.
Justin
Robert Kaiser
> It would sure be neato if a link to the Thunderbird section could be
> provided on the Hub's home page and have its own page ( it's just one
> more page ;) ). We all know that we could use more Thunderbird add-ons
> and perhaps the extra exposure might spark someone's interest.
There's no need to make Thunderbird special as well, if we want to
mention any other app, we should mention all those that are supported by
AMO - after all, e.g. SeaMonkey could use more add-ons just as much as
Thunderbird (and it's even quite simple for many Firefox or Thunderbird
add-ons to get them working in SeaMonkey 2.x).
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
> ** Fennec Add-ons
> ** Thunderbird Add-ons
Why are Fennec and Thunderbird special and Firefox and SeaMonkey not?
Robert Kaiser