Soon or later, we should remove FUEL. it's unmaintained, its code is getting old and nobody cares about working on it since we have the addons sdk. Once we have done bug 989307, updated documentation, we should gather stats about its usage on AMO, and then burn it, burn FUEL!

I have updated MDN to point out FUEL is deprecated, with a link to the add-ons SDK.

Does this mean we should also remove STEEL (the equivalent of FUEL) from Thunderbird?

I guess it depends on whether they want to remove extApplication.js from toolkit. Most of Thunderbird's uses could probably be replaced by the new AppConstants but I'm not sure we have a convenient replacement for restart().

This is only about fuel in browser/, not about toolkit, AFAIK.

We are 5 versions after FUEL deprecation, I feel like it's a good time to start the removal work. Need to remove browser/fuel, edit browser/moz.build and remove this stuff http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=fuel&find=package-manifest.in Any objections?

No objections here.

I'm working on a patch

cool, thank you.

any news?

Hi I would like to work on this bug. Could you please assign it to me?

(In reply to chaithanya from comment #10) > Hi > I would like to work on this bug. Could you please assign it to me? Done. Let us know if you need help writing the patch!

Comment on attachment 8711684 [details] [diff] [review] Made changes as by comment 5. Please review. Review of attachment 8711684 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- This patch misses these bits: "Need to remove browser/fuel, edit browser/moz.build" You should remove the browser/fuel directory and everything in it, and use "hg remove" and/or its friends to ensure that that comes as part of the diff you attach. Likewise, you'll need to adjust browser/moz.build to ensure it doesn't try to build anything there.

Comment on attachment 8711684 [details] [diff] [review] Made changes as by comment 5. Please review. Review of attachment 8711684 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apart from these changes, you should also remove the browser/fuel directory, and edit browser/moz.build accordingly. The patch format looks good.

Comment on attachment 8712638 [details] [diff] [review] Made changes by comment 14. Please review. Review of attachment 8712638 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I found one other missing bit to remove before we can call this done: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/.eslintignore there's a "browser/fuel/**" line Apart from that, I think we're good!

Once you attach the updated patch, in case you don't have acees to the TryServer, just needinfo me and I will push it there for you.

I think it's worth a relnote for add-ons developers. Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated) [Why is this notable]: Add-on developers can no more use FUEL, some old add-ons using it will stop working. [Suggested wording]: FUEL (Firefox User Extension Library) has been removed, add-ons relying on it will stop working. Please use the Add-ons SDK (https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/SDK) [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: We should point developers to https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/SDK

(In reply to Marco Bonardo [::mak] from comment #21) > I think it's worth a relnote for add-ons developers. > > Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated) > [Why is this notable]: Add-on developers can no more use FUEL, some old > add-ons using it will stop working. > [Suggested wording]: FUEL (Firefox User Extension Library) has been removed, > add-ons relying on it will stop working. Please use the Add-ons SDK > (https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/SDK) > [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: We should point developers to > https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/SDK FWIW, I think we should point people to web extensions as well / instead, because by the time this hits release, that ought to be at least as viable an option. AFAIK there is little if any active development happening on the SDK right now.

(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #22) > FWIW, I think we should point people to web extensions as well / instead, > because by the time this hits release, that ought to be at least as viable > an option. AFAIK there is little if any active development happening on the > SDK right now. Good point, I honestly don't know what's the current situation, it's likely release drivers have a better idea. Maybe we could suggest both? I don't know of a plan to deprecate the add-on sdk.

The SDK will continue to be supported for a while after WebExtensions become available, but Gijs is right that it is and will be only in maintenance mode. I think offering both options would be good, and WebExtensions should be the top one.

Added to Fx 47 release notes (Aurora)

(In reply to neil@parkwaycc.co.uk from comment #3) > I guess it depends on whether they want to remove extApplication.js from > toolkit. > > Most of Thunderbird's uses could probably be replaced by the new > AppConstants but I'm not sure we have a convenient replacement for restart(). Restart is part of extIApplication, not STEEL. Steel seems largely unneded/can be replaced. On the other hand, Seamonkey's SMILE seems to be much larger, more completely mimicking the code being removed from FF here.