Firefox 3.0 Makes Leap Forward 401
Kurtz'sKompund writes "Mozilla has announced that Firefox 3.0 has passed a major milestone! The Places feature has been added to the alpha client slated for release next week. Places is a complete re-work of the bookmarking and history browser functions. It was at one point slated for Firefox 2.0, but will instead see release in Mozilla's next major version. '"We enabled the Places implementation of bookmarks on the trunk," said the Places team in a post to the Mozilla developer center blog. "Although there is still much to be done, this is an important milestone for us." Firefox 3.0 alpha 5 is scheduled to launch June 1. Because Places uses the open-source SQLite database engine to store and retrieve bookmarks and history entries, it's incompatible with earlier Firefox editions' bookmarks. Alpha users must convert their existing entries, Mozilla developers said."
SQLite is in Firefox 2.0; What about SeaMonkey? (Score:4, Informative)
However, the Mozilla SeaMonkey suite doesn't yet have SQLite. Will it be unable to share bookmarks with the new Firefox? Or will it get SQLite before Firefox 3 is released?
Changes (Score:5, Informative)
The largest known change for Firefox 3 is the implementation of Gecko 1.9, an updated layout engine. It will also provide CSS3 columns.[90] Firefox 3 will include features that were bumped from Firefox 2, such as the overhauled Places system for storing bookmarks and history in an SQLite backend, according to the wiki.
Also, what's expected to come in FireFox 4.0 (also Wikipedia):
On October 13, 2006, Brendan Eich, Mozilla's Chief Technology Officer, wrote about the plans for Mozilla 2.0, the platform on which Firefox 4.0 is likely to be based. These changes include improving and removing XPCOM APIs, switching to standard C++ features, just-in-time compilation with JavaScript 2 (known as the Tamarin project), and tool-time and runtime security checks.
How much memory does it consume? (Score:1, Informative)
4331 me 15 0 285m 67m 18m S 1.7 3.4 0:27.10 firefox-bin
I don't know, is it windows guys developing it these days?
Re:Bring it on... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:5, Informative)
It fully supports transactions and is appropriately ACID. For someone who's had his Firefox bookmarks hosed before, this is very welcome for me.
The benefit of this will [hopefully] be fully searchable bookmarks and easy to move the bookmarks around to other computers.
I've used it in the past and it's been great for me. Check it out: http://www.sqlite.org/ [sqlite.org]
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:5, Informative)
Details [sqlite.org].
SQLite by itself, I imagine, won't. How much else they do with it may or may not.
Re:When? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:0, Informative)
Assuming Firefox is already 10MB (which isn't that far off) that increases the size by almost 3%, which is not insignificant. Especially when you realize that's leaving off all the bloat that will be included by code that uses a SQL database for bookmarks instead of something sane like a flat file.
They're bookmarks - that's a list of strings. Or at least, should be a list of strings.
Re:When? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SQLite is in Firefox 2.0; What about SeaMonkey? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Far from what people want... (Score:5, Informative)
> Adding a whole new bookmarks system is nice, but does the user-base need it ?
You obviously are not a programmer who understand xml parsing and knows SQLite very well. Well as I happen to be such a programmer, let me just tell you that I can pretty well guarantee to you that switching to SQLite will make the browser faster. Most like it will also decrease the amount of needed memory.
Reasons for this:
- SQLite is very light database. Basicly it is just component that can be used to write and read a file, but searching a certain element(s) in the file is very fast compared to normal read methods.
- Reading xml files or similar, as the current bookmakrs.htm file is, is very slow and it requires a lot of memory. This is because you first need to parse the html tree and after that you will get the actual data from the file. It is very good if you have only few items in the file, but if you have thousands bookmarks like some people do, it will get slow.
So basicly they are just removing the bloat and making the browser faster.
Re:Autoexport to HTML (Score:1, Informative)
Doesn't work (stupid javascript) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:2, Informative)
There are many easy to use tools for working with SQLite files.
Re:Thank you! (Score:2, Informative)
How about the transparency-printing bug? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, go try it. At least on OS X, you don't even need to print, you can just hit the "Preview" button from the Print dialog, when looking at a Google Maps "print view," and it'll show you the route-line-less (and therefore pretty damn useless) map that it's about to print. It does the same thing on any other page that uses overlaid transparent graphics in layers.
It's well known and extremely annoying, but apparently the FF devs don't care about printing bugs [osdir.com]?
It's unfortunate, because it just makes FF seem very much 'unfinished' when, in order to print a map from one of the more popular sites on the Internet, you have to use an alternate browser. The same thing works just fine in Safari on Mac OS X, or IE on Windows.
They need to stop adding new features and fix some of the bugs that have been around for months or years.
Re:When? (Score:5, Informative)
1 the sqllite engine is already present
2 they are yanking out the older crusty Mork/Xml/Vhatever code
3 they are using this to simplify things and enable cool things like throwing your bookmarks online (obsoleting the 12 bazillion bookmark sync extensions)
Re:Got NoScript? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When? (Score:4, Informative)
I remember a few years back when I first upgraded to a version of Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix (forget what it was called at the time) which used the Downloads dialog and instantly the whole thing slowed to a crawl. Why? Because I'd never cleared my downloads cache before and the brand new Downloads dialog had about 2000+ entries in it. I think simply opening the dialog took a couple of minutes and the Clean Up took about five minutes. All for what is essentially just a listbox! God knows what would happen if they ever tried to make the Downloads dialog useful by doing crazy things like telling you when a download failed to actually download anything.
OK, rant over. I like Firefox for the most part but that has really pissed me off for a long time. Glad I finally got that off my chest.
Re:When? (Score:2, Informative)
bookmark keywords [mozilla.org]
I use this all the time. For example "flix clerks" will do a netflix query for me. I use this even with google and have the search engine box disabled in the UI. Because the cursor location defaults to the url area when opening a new tab/window, I find this easier (you don't get the history of search terms like with the search box though, I'm not sure that's always a bad thing).
I see a word I don't know? double-click word, copy, cntl-t, d space, paste, enter - bam, it's very quick and I only use the mouse to select the word.
Re:When? (Score:5, Informative)
It just doesn't read-it anymore (but you can tell it to import it back if you like)
BTW, sqlite stores everything in one file so nothing is really changed
if you wan't to save, you just have to copy one file
if you wan't to move/copy you profile, it's just a file to copy
it will be much more robust, powerfull and allow new things to be done.
also the sqllite code is stable and field tested by hundred of projects so it's a very good idea to reuse it instead of using some mozilla only solution.
Re:So how long... (Score:4, Informative)
Screenshots of IE versions 1-7 [com.com]
Re:When? (Score:3, Informative)
Before you "cry wolf" over some technology being put into Firefox, why don't you read up on it? Hell, SQLite has been around for a long time. The feature-set is well known. Oh, and if you are using Firefox 2.x, well, guess what, SQLite, is a part of Firefox 2.x.
And you whole "point" about using a relational DB to store "flat data" is just silly. Firefox keeps a lot of info about a bookmark. That has to be stored somewhere.
Since SQLite is already a part of Firefox 2.x and since there have been no problems with the SQLite in Firefox 2.x, it seems safe to say that Firefox 3.x should keep SQLite and actually take advantage of the great SQL support.
I would love to be able to sort my Firefox bookmarks with no hassle. However, that is not currently the case.
Bitching about some technology that you do not understand is pretty chee-see IMO.
With that said