> Isn't that the same mechanism as the one you were saying it didn't need to use, though?

In my second comment?

I was replying to a detailed explanation of the old mechanism that ended with "that is no longer possible", so I said "it doesn't need to use that exact mechanism" referring to the old mechanism.

It needs to update to the new way things work. But that's fine. An extension that performs the same task is still fully possible.