556075 - Add "Using Jetpack SDK with XUL extensions" to the SDK docs

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Add-on SDK Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Nickolay_Ponomarev]

From http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-jetpack/browse_thread/thread/05bf9e5621ed8efb/d2c46e0fbc71667d?show_docid=d2c46e0fbc71667d

Comment 1

[Nickolay_Ponomarev]

Attachment: patch

I decided to rewrite to integrate better with the main tutorial.

Comment 2

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

Attachment: patch

Comment 3

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

Sorry, posted that last attachment to the wrong bug.

Comment 4

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

(Thanks for the patch, Nickolay! Will get back to you real soon on it.)

Comment 5

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

Comment on attachment 436001 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Thanks Nickolay. This looks good; I especially like the sidenotes!

More comments below.

>         <li id="package-spec">Package Specification</li>
>+        <li id="xul-extensions">Using Jetpack SDK with XUL extensions</li>
>         <li id="glossary">Glossary</li>

I think we can remove the word "Jetpack" from this entry and just say "the SDK", for brevity's sake.

>+With Jetpack SDK you can use modules in a regular XUL-based extension. This 

Should that be "with the Jetpack SDK"? Hm, this is an interesting question actually--I think I've been referring to the product as "the Jetpack SDK", but maybe your usage is actually more appropriate. Should probably discuss this with Myk and/or Noelle eventually.

>+<span class="aside">
>+There's only one interesting file (as of SDK 0.2) in the template extension -
>+the `harness.js` component that provides the CommonJS module loader (the

I think you can remove the "(as of SDK 0.2)" text; since this documentation is being added to the official SDK documentation, we can assume that it is up-to-date and accurate, so we don't need to qualify statements in this way, assuming that was your intent.

>+Copy your other extension files to `jetpack-sdk/packages/my-extension/extension`
>+(components, chrome.manifest and chrome files, etc).
>+

Shouldn't "components" and "chrome.manifest" be surrounded by backticks so they're in a monospaced font, since they're files?

Other than those minor nits, I think this looks great. If you'd rather not make the changes, that's fine and we can push this patch as-is, just let me know.

Comment 6

[Nickolay_Ponomarev]

Attachment: updated

Thanks. I'm surprised there weren't many more grammar blunders; with my English knowledge you really shouldn't ask my opinion on the necessity of a definite article :)

The new patch should have all these nits fixed.

Comment 7

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

Awesome, thanks! Pushed:

  Bug 556075 - Add "Using Jetpack SDK with XUL extensions" to the SDK docs
  By Nickolay_Ponomarev ([e-mail])
  http://hg.mozilla.org/labs/jetpack-sdk/rev/210ed699f08d5c1123b397d7bd932a7ffb2bc742

Comment 8

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

The Add-on SDK is no longer a Mozilla Labs experiment and has become a big enough project to warrant its own Bugzilla product, so the "Add-on SDK" product has been created for it, and I am moving its bugs to that product.

To filter bugmail related to this change, filter on the word "looptid".