On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Brett <
bre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I use the Builder regularly for testing my add-on. I love it. It is great to
> be able to have a rapid feedback cycle--without using the command line. I
> love being able to prototype new ideas quickly. And the reason why it may
> appear that several add-ons I (and no doubt others) have submitted to AMO
> did not originate from the Builder is because the AMO submission part of the
> site is broken!!!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775315
When I looked at Builder activity I was aware of the direct-to-AMO
submission issues. The number I get is based instead on a combination
of things in builder-generated xpis that fingerprints them. It's not
exact, but it should include most builder-created xpis that are on
AMO.
> Moreover, the site hasn't gone all the way to support features like locales,
> so once you get beyond a certain point of development (a feature request
> that was WONT-FIXed), one is forced to give it up--not because it is not a
> very sound website but because it has not been carried quite far enough.
I agree, for Builder to have been a better tool for add-on development
it would have needed to get more resources to actually drive features
and keep up with Jetpack changes. There is no Builder dev team at
Mozilla currently and hasn't been for over two years. Speaking
personally, it was frustrating to me to inherit Builder once the dev
team was disbanded.
> Please don't abandon yet another good technology when people are starting
> getting used to it (like Panorama). If you're not labeling things as
> experiments, etc., I think Mozilla ought to be reliable and trustworthy; if
> you do something, it should either be clear that "we may pull the rug out
> from under you on this" or you have our commitment that we will continue to
> support this for an extended period of time, say like Microsoft does with
> Windows. And if you decide to move certain functionality to an add-on, you
> ensure the add-on continues to work and be supported. But beyond just the
> expectations management, do not govern excessively by poll-taking--often
> metrics represent a lack of development of a product rather than unhappiness
> with the idea (since, why otherwise would as many people even try the
> product if they didn't like the concept?)
I definitely agree that the idea of Builder has merit. If I was to
start over ( and I may, as a side project ) I would do things very
differently:
* utilize the upcoming add-on manager changes so we can load a Jetpack
directly from a directory and dynamically reload it in Firefox
* use Codemirror and try and be as unopinionated as possible with the
editing experience.
* have the focus be 'JSFiddle for jetpacks', eg share-ability of
simple examples or ideas.
I'd even consider having the auth mechanism be github, and the code
stored as gists.
I apologize if you feel like the rug was pulled out from under you.
That's a totally valid reaction to have, we made something useful, you
use it regularly, and we're taking it away. Mozilla has not had any
resources dedicated to maintaining Builder for some time though, and
our infrastructure teams consider it a security risk.
To be honest, I wish we were further along with the cool stuff we're
working on that will leverage the Developer Tools in Firefox to make
development easier. The Add-on Debugger should land in Firefox 29.
Native Jetpack support and a new packager Jordan is working on called
jpm should follow, these are projects we're currently working on.
Additionally, it will soon be possible to share and use your modules
via npm. I might sound like I'm full of it making a bunch of promises
but by the time Builder is finally shut down we really will be in a
better place with tools.
Anyway, it was pointed out in IRC that the AMO blog post was quite
sanitized and PR-ish. I agree, I went through several rounds of
editing with our PR dept and took out a lot of what I originally
wanted to say, and I kind of regret that now. Thanks for challenging
the decision, I would rather discuss this openly and have people here
understand the decision better.
cheers, Jeff
ps yes the source for Builder is available on github but from
experience I would caution that it is a bit of a bear to get running.
Having said that, if you want to run your own somewhere and are
looking for help, please ping me and I will try to point you in the
right direction in terms of who to ask questions.