Gervase Markham wrote: > Dave Townsend wrote: >> Indeed, the issue is with add-on authors who do not want to host on >> AMO (for a variety of quite valid reasons). > > Could you expand on what those reasons are?
Some examples that I have heard (or experienced myself): Long review times leading to slow updates for the users. Dissatisfaction with the new Sandbox. Poor download statistics. Restrictions on what kind of add-ons they will host. Restrictions on the application compatibility you can set. Not appropriate for the market of the add-on (site specific add-ons etc.) >> A compromise allowing authors to host their xpis on their own sites >> but the update.rdf on AMO or some other Mozilla provided secure site >> might be a potential solution, but I think even this is not ideal from >> both author's and Mozilla's point of view. > > Why would this be not ideal? Well there would be an added burden on AMO (or whatever) to be able to host those rdf's and someone would have to develop and maintain whatever system was used to update the files. And for authors it doesn't really solve some of the problems with hosting on AMO itself as above. Dave _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
