<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Letting add-ons perform work during install and uninstall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall</link>
	<description>Spouting nonsense from the depths of my spare time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:20:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall#comment-22588</link>
		<dc:creator>Wladimir Palant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=464#comment-22588</guid>
		<description>Yes, even if you implement locks - a hook that isn&#039;t sandboxed can easily install a delayed action, e.g. one that enables the add-on again. So if an add-on wants to cause trouble it will be able to do that no matter what.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, even if you implement locks &#8211; a hook that isn&#8217;t sandboxed can easily install a delayed action, e.g. one that enables the add-on again. So if an add-on wants to cause trouble it will be able to do that no matter what.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mossop</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall#comment-22542</link>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=464#comment-22542</guid>
		<description>Yeah I failed to mention anything about user choice during the uninstall process but it is something I have been considering, I&#039;ll have to update it with some thoughts on that in the near future.

As for sandboxing, I don&#039;t think we&#039;ll be sandboxing much, which yes does give rise to the potential for the add-on hook to do something to the extension manager, however I think we can be quite careful and restrict that if we need to. Perhaps by putting locks in place so the various API calls that can install/uninstall extensions cannot be used during the call to the hook. Perhaps even going so far as saving the state of the extensions database and restoring it afterwards.

I&#039;m hoping that we won&#039;t need to go too far though. Ultimately if an add-on wants to cause problems then it has adequate time to do it while installed, I&#039;m not sure that we would have a particular problem during uninstall, and likely the only way to stop such problems would be a complete sandbox as you say, making the feature essentially useless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I failed to mention anything about user choice during the uninstall process but it is something I have been considering, I&#8217;ll have to update it with some thoughts on that in the near future.</p>
<p>As for sandboxing, I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;ll be sandboxing much, which yes does give rise to the potential for the add-on hook to do something to the extension manager, however I think we can be quite careful and restrict that if we need to. Perhaps by putting locks in place so the various API calls that can install/uninstall extensions cannot be used during the call to the hook. Perhaps even going so far as saving the state of the extensions database and restoring it afterwards.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m hoping that we won&#8217;t need to go too far though. Ultimately if an add-on wants to cause problems then it has adequate time to do it while installed, I&#8217;m not sure that we would have a particular problem during uninstall, and likely the only way to stop such problems would be a complete sandbox as you say, making the feature essentially useless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall#comment-22540</link>
		<dc:creator>Wladimir Palant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=464#comment-22540</guid>
		<description>Oh, and I agree with Malte - removing preferences would be a very useful thing if made optional. Currently, people often have the problem that they reinstall Adblock Plus in the hope its settings would reset themselves - but this doesn&#039;t happen. However, most people won&#039;t want the settings to be purged on uninstall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and I agree with Malte &#8211; removing preferences would be a very useful thing if made optional. Currently, people often have the problem that they reinstall Adblock Plus in the hope its settings would reset themselves &#8211; but this doesn&#8217;t happen. However, most people won&#8217;t want the settings to be purged on uninstall.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall#comment-22539</link>
		<dc:creator>Wladimir Palant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=464#comment-22539</guid>
		<description>The specification looks solid. I wonder however what kind of actions hooks *are* permitted to do. In particular whether they will run in a sandbox - because if they don&#039;t, preventing them from messing with the extension manager will be very hard (if not impossible). But if they do run in a sandbox, it will be very hard to define a sufficiently useful API.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The specification looks solid. I wonder however what kind of actions hooks *are* permitted to do. In particular whether they will run in a sandbox &#8211; because if they don&#8217;t, preventing them from messing with the extension manager will be very hard (if not impossible). But if they do run in a sandbox, it will be very hard to define a sufficiently useful API.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: malte</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/03/Letting-add-ons-perform-work-during-install-and-uninstall#comment-22535</link>
		<dc:creator>malte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=464#comment-22535</guid>
		<description>As a user, I don&#039;t necessarily want to delete all settings when uninstalling an extension. I&#039;d really want a checkbox in the uninstall confirmation (which already exists) asking me whether to remove all settings or not. The wiki doesn&#039;t say anything about this, so I thought I&#039;d just throw this in...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a user, I don&#8217;t necessarily want to delete all settings when uninstalling an extension. I&#8217;d really want a checkbox in the uninstall confirmation (which already exists) asking me whether to remove all settings or not. The wiki doesn&#8217;t say anything about this, so I thought I&#8217;d just throw this in&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

