Absolutely... extensions should be able to store data in the profile. I think that issue is orthogonal to where the extensions get installed. -Darin
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Amanda Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not a heavy extensions user, but I can think of basic use cases for > both per-browser and per-profile installation, mostly having to do with > whether or not the extension has state. It seems to me that stateful > extensions at the very least need per-profile state, even if the extension > itself is installed per-user or per-machine. > --Amanda > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I've been struggling with how extensions and profiles should relate. >> My initial thinking was that we should support installing extensions >> per-profile and per-machine (the latter for distribution deals >> mostly). Currently, our extension manager (ExtensionsService) object >> is owned by the profile and looks for extensions inside the profile >> directory. As for incognito mode, my assumption was that it was more >> correct to have extensions keep working in incognito mode than to have >> them stop working (there are tradeoffs both ways though). >> >> My immediate issue is that I'm trying to implement support for the >> extension:// protocol, which looks like this: >> extension://<extensionid>/path/inside/extension. In order to implement >> this, I need to be able to track a request back to the profile it came >> from. But at the point my custom protocol handler gets invoked, >> profile information is long since toast. >> >> Stepping back, I could make some simplifying assumptions: >> >> * We could start by implementing per-chrome-install extensions only. >> In that case a static protocol handler is fine. I'd also have to >> change the extension service to be a singleton and instead look for >> extension inside the app directory, similar to how npapi plugins work. >> >> * I could keep extensions installed per-profile for now, but assume >> that there is really only one profile per-browser process. In this >> world, I'd still make ExtensionsService be a singleton, but I'd >> initialize at browser startup with the path to the profile that was >> picked at startup. >> >> Any thoughts, either on advantages or disadvantages to installing >> extensions per-chrome install, or to assuming that there is only one >> profile per browser process? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> - a >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
