Open Bug 571259 Opened 15 years ago Updated 3 years ago

Decide whether we want document loader factories to be extensible, and how

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Navigation, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
DOM: Navigation
Platform:
x86
Windows 7
Type:
defect

Tracking

()

People

(Reporter: benjamin, Unassigned)

References

Details

Followup to bug 569644 - currently document loader factories are hooked up by categories pointing to contract IDs. This makes dynamically enabling and disabling the factories difficult (in response to prefs such as the fullpage-plugin pref, or the SVG or video enabled prefs), but it's not clear why we're doing this. Do we really want extension authors to be able to hook up document loaders? I don't think so and we should just remove this whole set of interfaces and hardcode our supported types and dynamically look up the plugin types, but bz may disagree.
Extension authors, I would think not (since actually implementing a DLF in an extension is well-nigh impossible). But embeddors should be able to hook up new DLFs, I would think... maybe.
Why? I'm skeptical of the complexity required versus the reward.
Hence "maybe". I suppose they can just write NPAPI plugins if they _really_ need to do whatever it is, right?
Indeed, or we could implement bug 558184!
OK. In that case, I think I'm fine with nixing DLF extensibility. Announce it widely, though?
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.