Comments on: Bugs involving multiple extensions http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/ Jesse Ruderman on Firefox, security, and more Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:14:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Shawn Wilsher http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2009 Shawn Wilsher Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:56:41 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2009 It would be great if Firefox gave each extension its own 'sandbox' so this could be easily avoidable. If someone were to branch off of your extension, but leave all the function names the same, it can completely kill your extension or theirs depending on the order in which they are installed. It would be great if Firefox gave each extension its own ’sandbox’ so this could be easily avoidable. If someone were to branch off of your extension, but leave all the function names the same, it can completely kill your extension or theirs depending on the order in which they are installed.

]]> By: Jesse Ruderman http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2006 Jesse Ruderman Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:44:03 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2006 Some extensions wrap everything in an anonymous function (like in bookmarklets) or in a "class" to limit their impact on the global variable namespace in browser.xul. Some extensions wrap everything in an anonymous function (like in bookmarklets) or in a “class” to limit their impact on the global variable namespace in browser.xul.

]]> By: Ted Mielczarek http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2005 Ted Mielczarek Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:00:16 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2005 Wow. Also, in his first comment, he says he uses *51* extensions. That's crazy. Villa: Should there be? Yes. Is it enforceable the way things are currently? No. Wow. Also, in his first comment, he says he uses *51* extensions. That’s crazy.

Villa:

Should there be? Yes. Is it enforceable the way things are currently? No.

]]> By: Villa http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2004 Villa Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:54:04 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2004 Shouldn't there be a standard for global variables inside extensions to avoid these problems? Maybe some packaging convention? Shouldn’t there be a standard for global variables inside extensions to avoid these problems? Maybe some packaging convention?

]]> By: Jesse Ruderman http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2001 Jesse Ruderman Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:14:14 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2001 Link fixed. Thanks, Shaver. monk.e.boy, it would raise an exception, but things being broken would be the most visible result. I'm not sure how much would break. Link fixed. Thanks, Shaver.

monk.e.boy, it would raise an exception, but things being broken would be the most visible result. I’m not sure how much would break.

]]> By: monk.e.boy http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2000 monk.e.boy Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:09:46 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/31/bugs-involving-multiple-extensions/#comment-2000 > (such as two extensions having global variables > in browser.xul overlays with the same name) Wouldn't this raise an exception, or at least a warning? monk.e.boy > (such as two extensions having global variables
> in browser.xul overlays with the same name)

Wouldn’t this raise an exception, or at least a warning?

monk.e.boy

]]>