On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doing per-user extension installation w/ per-profile disabledness > override and configuration is an interesting idea. Seems simpler in > some ways, and perhaps better than purely per-profile. I like it--that would cover all of the "wanting different extensions active for different profiles" examples I can think of. > What UI do you envision for disabling extensions per-profile? I guess > this could go in a future management UI? What about for incognito > mode? Perhaps in the management screen, we could have a checkmark for > whether an extension is enabled in incognito mode? That would work. This is more or less how add-ons work in games (such as World of Warcraft): whether something is installed is separate from whether or not it's enabled. This also opens up the possibility of some "compatibility level" checking, where extensions that were known to break with an update could be disabled as part of the update. But that's getting fancy. Just a set of checkboxes in the list of installed extensions would be a place to start. --Amanda --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
