I understood that by converting user scripts to extensions with content scripts on the fly, there will not be any need for handling user scripts at all. Did I not understand correctly? is that not the intention?
☆PhistucK On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 17:38, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. <phajdan...@chromium.org>wrote: > I was thinking about many DirectoryWatcher problems, especially on > Linux, and now noticed http://crbug.com/20832. > > User scripts are the only user of DirectoryWatcher. DirectoryWatcher > has many quirks - on Windows it behaves in a weird way on XP so we > can't test it reliably (and hits the disk on UI thread - > http://crbug.com/6080), on Linux it's incomplete because inotify > doesn't natively support watching directory trees. On Mac it's OK I > think. I'd rather like to remove it, but here are some other options I > was thinking about that would really improve the situation. > > First, can we make DirectoryWatcher support only watching *files* and > not directories (and making it FileWatcher)? We have reliable support > for that on all platforms. It would simplify Linux code quite a bit, > and maybe even allow writing better tests. > > What do you think? The basic options here are: > > a) Sticking with DirectoryWatcher and somehow implementing missing > features on Linux (http://crbug.com/8968). Doesn't sound realistic to > me, the current code is complex enough. > b) Changing to FileWatcher (this seems to be the best option for now, > unless we're not sure we want to get rid of it completely) > c) Removing DirectoryWatcher completely (may simplify the user scripts > code in chrome/browser/extensions, but also risks stability a bit) > > -- > Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
