Moz has begun Add-On Collections (via Ajaxian):
Today, we’re excited to introduce a new feature to our website that will expose the niche add-ons that can be hard to find, and gives users a more active role in helping outstanding add-ons bubble to the top. One thing we’ve learned as add-ons have grown in popularity over the years is that once a user finds an add-on they love, they become a fan for life. We see this all the time as people recommend add-ons to their friends and write great reviews. And we’re very happy to see so many bloggers writing about lists of their favorite add-ons.
Now this is interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s an example of the URL Trail pattern; Firefox Collections is a framework allowing people to publish and share a collection of links; very similar to Amazon’s “So you want to …” ListMania. It adds the ability to do something that neither I, nor Vannevar B. mentioned about trails: the ability to subscribe to a trail, in order to see changes made, e.g. Here is the RSS feed for the Social Circuit collection.
The second hotness about Collections is the fact that Firefox add-on management is getting easier. You can click on a bunch of add-ons, like adding them to a shop cart, and install them all in one go:
It takes Firefox closer to where it should be IMO, in which add-ons are easily installed with one click, and distros are available for specialised needs, e.g. a developer build containing Firebug and other dev tools. Moz themselves might be wary of blessing certain extensions in this way; so the ideal situation might be if they were to provide a framework like Collections, where anyone can propose a bundle and the best bundles rise to the top, with a way to yoink a Firefox build containing all the add-ons in a collection.
Chrome now has Greasemonkey support. The Chromium patch came from Aaron Boodman, who is at once a Google employee and the brains behind the original Firefox Greasemonkey extension.
It makes me wonder if this is the plan for Chrome add-ons. Forget about anything like Firefox’s add-on mechanism and just rely on Greasemonkey. With the right APIs, it’s all you need.
For a long time, I have been confused and disturbed by the disparity between Greasemonkey and Firefox extensions. Creating a Greasemonkey extension is dead simple for any Ajax developer; creating a bona fide Firefox extension is more complicated, and involves writing the kind of meta-descriptions and JARs that most Ajax folk avoid. (The kind of simplicity mantra that has made JQuery king of the hill for now.)
You might recall I automagically ported the domain teleporter Greasemonkey script to a Firefox extension a while back. That this was possible, and easy, demonstrates that the Firefox extension mechanism could be made a lot simpler. I thought there was talk of doing it for FF3, but it didn’t happen.
What do Firefox extensions do that Greasemonkey can’t? Nothing Greasemonkey can’t get around.
- Extended access – manipulating the Browser Object Model, accessing local file system, etc. All of this could be possible from a Greasemonkey script with the right APIs available. There are security implications, of course, but as long as users are aware of who can do what, it’s no different from what we have now. It may be even better, due to Greasemonkey’s built-in wildcard-based URL filtering, so that certain apps might only be limited to certain domains.
- Metadata – certain metadata is present in an extension. This could just as easily be part of Greasemonkey’s metadata.
It’s my hope that Google’s vision for Chrome plugins is Greasemonkey on Steroids, and that this unleashes a whole new ecosystem of powerful add-ons that have until now required too much effort to build.