Right now both high- and low-level modules appear together in the core library and its documentation, but there's a significant difference between them, in that the high-level modules have undergone rigorous review for API consistency, developer ergonomics, security, etc. We should encourage addon developers to use the high-level modules instead of the low-level ones by distinguishing between them in the core library and its documentation. We should also rename the core library from "jetpack-core" to "core", and depending on what changes are required to fix this bug, it may make that change in conjunction with these. Also, there is some overlap with the effort to distinguish between public and private modules over in bug 571285. Is it worth merging the concepts of private and low-level to simplify the number of ways in which we distinguish high-level modules from low-level and/or private ones? I leave that as a question for the assignee to ponder. Atul has said that he'll take this on for the 0.8 development cycle, so assigning it to him.
Er, I think this bug is basically being "replaced" with bug 596406. Perhaps we should mark it as invalid wontfix?
I would say rather than this bug represents the overall issue that the fix for bug 596406 addresses. So they are either duplicates, or this bug depends on that one. This bug is already marked as depending on that one, so let's leave it at that and resolve this bug once that one is fixed (unless we identify something else that also needs to be done to resolve this bug).
That sounds reasonable to me, Myk.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
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".
Component: Jetpack SDK → General
Product: Mozilla Labs → Add-on SDK
QA Contact: jetpack-sdk → general
Version: Trunk → unspecified
Atul, have the goals here been achieved? Looks like this could be closed now.
Yeah, I think we're good here, thanks!
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.