whatcould wrote:
> Chiming in. As a JS developer, I miss the old behavior too.
>
> Today I had the unfortunate experience of thinking my javascript was
> broken for some reason. Turns out firebug had deactivated itself, and
> when it's inactive doesn't even catch console.log calls -- so my app
> was working when FB was open, but halting execution (on console.log)
> when I closed FB (so I could have more screen real estate, mostly).
>
> Only now (on further exploration) do i see that FB stays on when you
> click the bug -- but disables when you click the (x).
>
> I'm not sure what the old behavior was exactly, or how different it is
> from the new behavior, but some kind of upgrade message about the
> change would have been very helpful.
>
>
>
> On Jun 30, 1:22 pm, sir_brizz <[email protected]> wrote:
>   
>> Once again, I have to agree. I have a co-worker who just upgraded to
>> 3.5 and naturally upgraded FireBug. He didn't even know that Firebug
>> wasn't working the way it did before AT ALL. He thought it was just
>> broken and unusable. I'm sure he is not an isolated case of this.
>>
>> The new activation model makes sense, but it is NOT easy or
>> convenient.
>>
>> On Jun 30, 11:13 am, MorningZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> "2) The activation logic must be simple so, it isn't a barrier for new
>>> users and/or for users who user Firebug just time to time"
>>>       
>>> This just isn't correct...
>>>       
>>> Even a new user, or a time to time user, would *expect* that if:
>>>       
>>> - They told Firebug to Watch Requests, Turn on Console, etc etc  (the
>>> three checkboxes when then panel is pulled)....
>>>       
>>> If Firebug is told to do that, then whether he/she opened a new
>>> browser window, opened a new tab, stuff like that, then Firebug should
>>> bedoing it's thing.. not require it to be "activated" and the panel
>>> pulled up.....  that's just very unfriendly to developers (and isn't
>>> that your core/target group of people using this awesome tool?)
>>>       
>>> As said, 1.2 and 1.3 behaved like this, why rip that behavior out
>>> totally?    It's like what Microsoft seems to do all the time.... they
>>> try to dumb down their User Interfaces so much, that they absolutely
>>> kill it for people who *really* use it day to day
>>>       
>>> Look, I don't have your stats on usage or really any idea of what you
>>> consider "average user" or "power user", but you asked earlier in this
>>> topic for some specific "dislikes" and I and others posted them....
>>> replying with "can't satisfy everyone" is just weak.....
>>>       
>>> On Jun 30, 12:48 pm, Francis Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> If you could do that, that would be awesome and save me a lot of
>>>> work :)
>>>> I have hated the way the activation works in 1.4x, so I created a new
>>>> firebug plug-in, but I haven't had time to actually code anything into
>>>> it yet.
>>>> Hopefully we can get a group of people working on this… that would
>>>> make it easier for all of us :)
>>>>         
>>>> I have a discussion forum for web developers onhttp://startrekguide.com.
>>>> You can contact me there if you're interested (username is "Handyman")
>>>> and we can setup a forum and repository (if needed) for it.
>>>>         
>>>> Francis
>>>>         
>>>> On Jun 30, 9:21 am, Trevan Richins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> You can make firebug always on (right-click the icon in the bottom bar).  
>>>>> I've also been playing around with an extension for my own development 
>>>>> that forces firebug to always be on for my development domain.  I've got 
>>>>> issues with it where it is minimized when it shouldn't be or maximized 
>>>>> when it shouldn't be, and I've never tested "open in new window" but it 
>>>>> is working fine for me.  The email thread where I've asked questions 
>>>>> about the extension is titled "Help with extension to enable Firebug at a 
>>>>> specific domain".  I could post my code and let you try and make it work 
>>>>> for you.
>>>>>           
>>>>> Trevan
>>>>>           
>>     
>
> >
>
>   
using either or is abotu the same IMHO, i do prefer the older to the 
newer as it was faster to use, the new one is more annoying to look at 
request sand switching between tabs.

kara

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to