Page 1 of 1

Waterfox Current

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:04 pm
by maxoku
Please rewrite FlashGot for Waterfox Current. It supports legacy add-ons, but they need to be rewritten to new system.
There is no other add-on (legacy or webextension) with this functionality, so please consider it.

Of course while Waterfox Current is only multiprocessed the bugs of it would need to be fixed along.
I know 3 multiprocess bugs from Waterfox Classic:
1. Context menu items don't work.
2. Single click is registered as double click when browser regains focus.
3. Medias can be captured in wrong tab. Usually if it was detected while viewing a different tab.

And another thing, not a bug, but annoying. Detecting invalid files with smal size (30 B) or with unknown size (???). It's obvious they're not propper medias and shouldn't be grabbed.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:27 am
by GµårÐïåñ
While I appreciate why you are asking, the fact remains that it is very difficult and time consuming to write and maintain an archaic and deprecated codebase for those who wish to remain on a deprecated and unsafe attempt to remain in the past. Yes, I miss the original architecture too but having patchwork of things to run on minorly relevant technology is an unreasonable ask. But hey maybe Giorgio is a glutton for punishment and wants to, we'll let him decide - after all he is the one who has to do it.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:51 pm
by therube
Detecting invalid files with smal size (30 B) or with unknown size. It's obvious they're not proper medias and shouldn't be grabbed
I'd been thinking about that of late.
And yes it might be nice to discard links that aren't "links".
But actually some of them "are", but may be something like a m3u, which while FlashGot may not be able to handle directly, having that link available, some other utility may be able to work with it.

There does exist, flashgot.media.minSize.flv;500000.
But not something like, flashgot.media.minSize.mp4.


Anyway, a configurable size setting would be nice, in particular when FlashGot might pick up both a tiny preview file & also the actual file. In those case, if you could simply ignore the smaller sized file, it would be more convenient cause then you could just click the FlashGot media icon & be done with it. (Otherwise you'd have to either right-click the icon & select the wanted file, or use FlashGot's picker to choose).

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:08 pm
by therube
glutton for punishment
I looked that up in the dictionary, & it came back, "Quantum" ;-).

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:09 pm
by GµårÐïåñ
:mrgreen: Image

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:36 pm
by maxoku
GµårÐïåñ wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:27 am
remain on a deprecated and unsafe attempt to remain in the past.
What is deprecated and unsafe in this, not mentioning about a past? There is no other alternative. For all those years no one has made anything like this (legacy or webextension). I want to download files with my external download manager, not sitting in the past. Using Waterfox Current is about going to the future leaving a lot of 'old' extensions (including original FlashGot) from the Classic version to the past.
minorly relevant technology is an unreasonable ask.
What that suppose to mean? That technology is better than webextension system that has too much limitations. And it's more reasonable to ask to only rewrite the add-on which is easier then making a new one on webextension system. That technology still can be used even in Firefox with some effort.
But hey maybe Giorgio is a glutton for punishment and wants to
That was very disrespectful for both Giorgio and me.

If you have better ideas then I'll listen to them, but offending people isn't a right answer to an essential problem.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:56 pm
by barbaz
maxoku wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:36 pm
But hey maybe Giorgio is a glutton for punishment and wants to
That was very disrespectful for both Giorgio and me.
maxoku, have you ever tried to write legacy extensions for Waterfox Current?

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:15 pm
by maxoku
barbaz wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:56 pm
maxoku, have you ever tried to write legacy extensions for Waterfox Current?
What kind of question is that? I'm a user, not a developer or programist. What else can I do? What other alternative I have? The only thing I can do is to ask the creator to rewrite it. If you have any other suggestions then I'll hear it, but anyone should know better than justifise insulting others, only because a request has been made.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:19 pm
by barbaz
maxoku wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:15 pm
barbaz wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:56 pm
maxoku, have you ever tried to write legacy extensions for Waterfox Current?
[...] I'm a user, not a developer or programist.
I'll read that as you answering "no".

I think there has been a misunderstanding here, largely because you don't realise what's involved in writing legacy extensions for Waterfox Current (and that is not your fault). I did try it and gave up - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25526

And IIRC FlashGot is more complicated than NoScript Classic.

I can see how GµårÐïåñ's comment could look over-the-top to someone who never got involved with rewriting legacy extensions for Waterfox Current. But if you had some sense of the process, you would know that GµårÐïåñ's comment isn't insulting anyone. It's only descriptive of the situation.

I hope this helps clarify so this thread can get back focused again.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:56 pm
by maxoku
barbaz wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:19 pm
GµårÐïåñ's comment isn't insulting anyone. It's only descriptive of the situation.
I still have a different opinion on that. Maybe that being overdescriptive is offending. No one is forcing anyone to be rude, people choose to be. Everyone can express themselves normally. GµårÐïåñ chose differently and did that intentionally. Defending that is just justifying an improper behavior.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:26 pm
by GµårÐïåñ
barbaz wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:19 pm
... isn't insulting anyone. It's only descriptive of the situation.
Precisely. I have no reason to insult you because that would imply it is personal and it is not, never is as I don't even know you.
maxoku wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:56 pm
I still have a different opinion on that. Maybe that being overdescriptive is offending. No one is forcing anyone to be rude, people choose to be. Everyone can express themselves normally. GµårÐïåñ chose differently and did that intentionally. Defending that is just justifying an improper behavior.
How you take it is however your prerogative. But if you keep going off topic, you are basically trolling and we will simply close this topic, there is no reason to engage in frivolous accusations when there is no substance to the complaint.

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 10:57 am
by therube

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 12:27 am
by maxoku
@therube
Thanks, now I see why do you have an Ambassador title ;)

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 12:28 pm
by therube
(I'm unable to run WF Current in Sandboxie?
Actually, it runs, it opens, but that is the extent of it.
Cannot load any web page, even entering about:config results in a no op?

FF "current" works fine.)

Re: Waterfox Current

Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 3:04 pm
by maxoku
Try to ask about it here.