Waterfox and old firefox api

[nyancat18]

Hi

sorry for ask you this question.

But i want know if Waterfox will support the old firefox addon api?

or it will reject this just like firefox

[criztovyl]

afaik the old api will still be supported.

[nyancat18]

@criztovyl i tak about waterfox 57+ :+1:

[MrAlex94]

The plan is to keep add-ons running for now. I'm currently looking into creating experimental WebExtension APIs, so port the old add-on APIs so developers can then move forward that way :-)

[juneyourtech]

@MrAlex94 There are certain XUL-based extensions that only run with XUL. If both XUL and WebExtensions could be supported simultaneously, and for (far) longer than Firefox does, then this would allow for a more graceful transition than what moz://a are doing right now.

[nyancat18]

@juneyourtech its exactyle what i want i depend of RAS

and ras authos hate new api :(

[Ulf3000]

you can still write plain bootstrapped addons for ff quantum (57+) ...

we should just port the best old addons to bootstrapped addons and have a solution which works in ff nightly(and waterfox quantum) for the foreseeable future

porting back in the sdk will be probably too hard i tell you that now ..

and xul addons still work !!! .. but since ff57+ uses a different browser.xul some of those addons just cant find the elements they are supposed to modify and sometimes theres problems which must be replaced by promise and multithreading solution

[grahamperrin]

… looking into creating experimental WebExtension APIs, so port the old add-on APIs …

You might like to follow Mozilla bug 1215059 - (webextensions-additional-apis) [meta] Extend WebExtensions with custom APIs so more legacy add-ons can be ported.

[grahamperrin]

@captnfab hi, re: your https://github.com/captnfab/FireTitle/, this month's decision at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1396010#a13659144_582971 (the title of that bug probably was _not_ a good fit for some of what was discussed) and last year's https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/215#issuecomment-330824190 above:

• if there could be a Waterfox implementation of a WebExtensions API for what's required, how would you summarise that API?

TIA

---

(A 'Waterfox implementation' of an API, to complement Mozilla's implementation of WebExtensions APIs. A superset of sorts.)