you can have my vote for OS.File. :-) On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 12:15:57 AM UTC+1, John-Kim Murphy wrote: > > API's will be removed because they are hindering Firefox development. > Straight > from the Firefox developers > <https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/> > : >> >> Consequently, we have decided to deprecate add-ons that depend on XUL, >> XPCOM, and XBL. > > > The API BJ linked to uses XPCOM > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Code_snippets/File_I_O>: > > This article describes local file input/output in chrome JavaScript. >> You access the file system using Mozilla XPCOM >> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XPCOM> components. > > > So, unfortunately, my opinion is still TiddlyFox cannot be ported to the > future Firefox extension model. > > I guess Firefox is taking suggestions for their new extension model at > user voice. Does TiddlyFox have enough users to be considered "popular?" > > Anyways I suggest all TiddlyWiki/TiddlyFox users vote for this suggestion: > Support > OS.File, or at least chrome.fileSystem > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwebextensions.uservoice.com%2Fforums%2F315663-webextension-api-ideas%2Fsuggestions%2F9438246-support-os-file-or-at-least-chrome-filesystem&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEmDzST--JsP-ULBCpmJJFtflKr-g> > ! > > > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 6:21:28 PM UTC+9, BJ wrote: >> >> I don't think ff is going to change its low level api - just invent more >> api layers on top of it: >> >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Code_snippets/File_I_O >> >> Cheers >> >> BJ >> >> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 8:44:18 AM UTC+1, John-Kim Murphy wrote: >>> >>> Oh, that's great! Is this file api documented anywhere? Will it be a >>> Firefox-only API? I couldn't find anything here >>> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions>. >>> >>> I just assumed Firefox was becoming more like Chrome, where a >>> Tiddlyfox-like extension is not possible, or is much more limited. >>> >>> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:04:35 PM UTC+9, BJ wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> at the present time firefox is supporting a file api with the new >>>> extension api. This means that it is possible to implement the current >>>> tiddlyfox functionality. I wrote the tiddlyclip firefox plugin which I >>>> plan >>>> to re-write with the new api. - however mozilla has had enormous problems >>>> with the electrolysis project - and it has been delayed many times - I >>>> have >>>> given up trying to get anything to work until they release electrolysis >>>> into the beta channel - otherwise I feel I am wasting my time. When I port >>>> tiddlyclip I will help port tiddlyfox - if some else has not already done >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> BJ >>>> >>>> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 5:02:14 AM UTC+1, John-Kim Murphy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If I understand this article >>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/mozilla-sets-plan-to-dump-firefox-add-ons-move-to-chrome-like-extensions/> >>>>> >>>>> correctly, does it mean TiddlyFox will no longer work in future versions >>>>> of >>>>> Firefox? Firefox is dropping support for XUL add-ons, and TiddlyFox uses >>>>> XUL, right? >>>>> >>>>> I have a feeling TiddlyFox cannot be fully ported to the new, limited >>>>> programming model... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/201b0c3c-ab57-404d-9b35-ad757ea123ff%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
