InformAction Forums

Could someone please explain, why the content of the chrome folder isn't longer packed into noscript.jar starting with version 5.1.0?

In chrome.manifest all definitions of overlay, style, component, contract and category disappeared as well. Are they no longer necessary?

Is there a relation between the removal of the definitions and the content of the chrome folder being unpacked?

why the content of the chrome folder isn't longer packed into noscript.jar

Any reason being unpacked is unacceptable to you?
Reason, I'd guess, might have something to do with 5 being a hybrid; XUL & webex?

In chrome.manifest all definitions of overlay, style, component, contract and category disappeared as well.

Oh, really going out on a limb (IOW I have no clue, but...) again guessing due to webex, with webex being severely limited in the "styling" department (& more). In any case, with 5 being functionally equivalent (basically) with 2, the particular code, or similar code to accomplish the same tasks has to be in there, somewhere.

10 is a totally different animal (beast).

Is there a relation between the removal of the definitions and the content of the chrome folder being unpacked?

Again, guessing, I would say not. Suspect you could take any .xpi that has embedded .jar, unpack it, repackage in the .xpi, & it would run fine (signing crap aside).

And then it might again be related to webex, with webex not able to use .jar (guessing - at least I'm not seeing any .jar in a few webex extensions I happen to have on hand)?

Guest wrote:Could someone please explain, why the content of the chrome folder isn't longer packed into noscript.jar starting with version 5.1.0?

It's no longer necessary or useful. The noscript.jar file was only for Firefox 3.x support. Firefox 3.x hasn't been supported for two years now.

Guest wrote:In chrome.manifest all definitions of overlay, style, component, contract and category disappeared as well. Are they no longer necessary?

Correct. Restartless extensions have other ways of handling that stuff.

might again be related to webex, with webex not able to use .jar (guessing

And on that note, & to bring that thought into question, if it were a webex/extension thing, FF itself does continue to use .jar (.ja, but its the same) for (two instances of) omni.ja. (Now FF itself does a number of underhanded things that it does not allow others to do - like using non-webex &/or hybrid extensions .)

It's no longer necessary or useful. The noscript.jar file was only for Firefox 3.x support.

I don't follow. AFAIK, .jar was used for (supposed) efficiencies in operation, things like that. With never a requirement to be one way or the other.

(In a somewhat similar vein, some extensions would not work properly "packed", aka as an .xpi, & so they were "forcibly" set to "unpack" during install, <em:unpack>true</em:unpack>. But there was never any "requirement" for a particular extension to remain "packed", as an .xpi. All could unpack, if they wished.)

therube wrote:

It's no longer necessary or useful. The noscript.jar file was only for Firefox 3.x support.

I don't follow. AFAIK, .jar was used for (supposed) efficiencies in operation, things like that. With never a requirement to be one way or the other.

Seems like you follow just fine.

IIRC the "efficiencies in operation" were because Firefox 3.x stored ALL extensions unpacked. Firefox 4 and up keep extensions packed by default, and the efficiencies of inner .jar don't apply to packed extensions.

(I no longer remember the details, sorry.)