Aaron Klotz at Mozilla

My adventures as a member of Mozilla’s Platform Integration Team

On WebExtensions

| Comments

There has been enough that has been said over the past week about WebExtensions that I wasn’t sure if I wanted to write this post. As usual, I can’t seem to help myself. Note the usual disclaimer that this is my personal opinion. Further note that I have no involvement with WebExtensions at this time, so I write this from the point of view of an observer.

API? What API?

I shall begin with the proposition that the legacy, non-jetpack environment for addons is not an API. As ridiculous as some readers might consider this to be, please humour me for a moment.

Let us go back to the acronym, “API.” Application Programming Interface. While the usage of the term “API” seems to have expanded over the years to encompass just about any type of interface whatsoever, I’d like to explore the first letter of that acronym: Application.

An Application Programming Interface is a specific type of interface that is exposed for the purposes of building applications. It typically provides a formal abstraction layer that isolates applications from the implementation details behind the lower tier(s) in the software stack. In the case of web browsers, I suggest that there are two distinct types of applications: web content, and extensions.

There is obviously a very well defined API for web content. On the other hand, I would argue that Gecko’s legacy addon environment is not an API at all! From the point of view of an extension, there is no abstraction, limited formality, and not necessarily an intention to be used by applications.

An extension is imported into Firefox with full privileges and can access whatever it wants. Does it have access to interfaces? Yes, but are those interfaces intended for applications? Some are, but many are not. The environment that Gecko currently provides for legacy addons is analagous to an operating system running every single application in kernel mode. Is that powerful? Absolutely! Is that the best thing to do for maintainability and robustness? Absolutely not!

Somewhere a line needs to be drawn to demarcate this abstraction layer and improve Gecko developers’ ability to make improvements under the hood. Last week’s announcement was an invitation to addon developers to help shape that future. Please participate and please do so constructively!

WebExtensions are not Chrome Extensions

When I first heard rumors about WebExtensions in Whistler, my source made it very clear to me that the WebExtensions initiative is not about making Chrome extensions run in Firefox. In fact, I am quite disappointed with some of the press coverage that seems to completely miss this point.

Yes, WebExtensions will be implementing some APIs to be source compatible with Chrome. That makes it easier to port a Chrome extension, but porting will still be necessary. I like the Venn Diagram concept that the WebExtensions FAQ uses: Some Chrome APIs will not be available in WebExtensions. On the other hand, WebExtensions will be providing APIs above and beyond the Chrome API set that will maintain Firefox’s legacy of extensibility.

Please try not to think of this project as Mozilla taking functionality away. In general I think it is safe to think of this as an opportunity to move that same functionality to a mechanism that is more formal and abstract.

Comments