On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
Right now, we are unpacking extensions in the browser process. This
basically consists of unzipping the package into a directory structure
and parsing a JSON manifest.
Both of these things feel like things we should not
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
Right now, we are unpacking extensions in the browser process. This
basically consists of unzipping the package into a directory structure
and parsing a JSON manifest.
Both of these things feel like things we should not
The issue with images is with themes, since they're displayed by the
browser process.
The issue with images is also an issue with PageActions, where we want to
display icons (handed to us by an extension) inside the Omnibox.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium
Thanks for the replies!
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
I think we should go with the utility process. We've seen several
examples where this would be a useful concept to have.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Erik Kay erik...@chromium.org wrote:
There
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
We can use DuplicateHandle() to get the input file handle in, but I am
not sure what to do about getting the directory sturcture out.
Crazy-talk: Have the renderer unpack the zip into a SQLite database.
Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for
first-run import as well.
Key items, I can think of:
1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?)
2- We can allow a directory to be available for read/write
3- Use IPC for progress / heartbeat
In other words pretty much
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, cpu c...@chromium.org wrote:
Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for
first-run import as well.
Key items, I can think of:
1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?)
2- We can allow a directory to be available for
