On Jul 1, 6:17 pm, johnjbarton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 3:38 pm, sir_brizz <bj.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been using 1.4 off and on for the last several months, and I've > > not gained any ounce of respect for this activation model. I think > > it's rather telling that all along its development the question was > > asked "how should [some process] function?", a question which simply > > did not apply to the old model at all. For example, if I enable > > In this regard I can speak from experience in the development of 1.3. > There more questions and quite a lot complains.
Well, I was only around for the alphas/betas of 1.3, but I don't recall a lot of issues surrounding the activation model as just general insecurity about moving on to it. > > > Firebug on a tab and minimize it then browse to another page, it is > > disabled on the following page. Presumably, it only enabled for the > > first page and not for the current tab, yet if I have the panel up it > > stays active for the tab on every page. How should this function? In > > 1.3 there was no question. If the panel wasn't enabled for the > > following page's domain, you would just enable it and refresh and you > > were done taking action. In the new model, you have to wonder about > > what Firebug should be doing in this scenario, which immediately makes > > the model more complicated than it should be. I would think that the > > tab rule should apply here, since Firebug was enabled inside the tab. > > But, of course, that's not how it works. > > I'm sorry but I can't sort out what you are saying here. I suggest > that if you can give the individual steps by the buttons then your > reaction or issue it will be easier to understand. > Sure, it's easy to replicate and is probably by design. Open any page Click to enable Firebug Click minimize (the bug will still be lit) Browse to another page (bug is not lit) That's really all. I would think that the per-tab activation would take effect in this case, but it doesn't. That by itself would resolve a lot of my complaints with this activation model. However, this gets into other questions that are also questions with the per-tab activation. Should Firebug save activated settings for each domain you visit while it is activated? I don't know. > > > > > > So, how can we continue to claim this is not more complex? It > > > > absolutely is! > > > > Because 1 < 5. Give it a chance. > > > But, really, you're saying that 1 or 2 is less than 1. (And that is > > not considering the number of steps on ensuing pages in a domain, > > although this appears to have been fixed in the latest alpha of 1.5) > > Yes, based on discussions in this group including ones you contributed > to I realized there was a simple and coherent way to support same- > domain activation. Try it and let us know. I'll give it a shot. This might solve a lot of my complaints, as currently it seems page based (which is entirely annoying since 1.3 was domain based). > > jjb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
