[Tickets #2565] Re: Gecko Bookmarks extension

[bugs at bugs.horde.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT MONITORED.

Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/?id=2565
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ticket             | 2565
 Updated By         | joey at joeyhewitt.com
 Summary            | Gecko Bookmarks extension
 Queue              | Trean
 Type               | Enhancement
 State              | Feedback
 Priority           | 2. Medium
 Owners             | 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


joey at joeyhewitt.com (2007-06-20 00:55) wrote:

> 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!