-chromium-dev On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 14:18, Erik Kay <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Thanks everyone for your feedback and examples. >> >> From this thread and talking to people in person, I came to the >> conclusions that: >> >> a) profile-level and machine-level extension installations are both >> important use cases >> b) there are relatively easy ways to work around the technical problem >> I was having implementing profile-level extension installations >> >> I have a implementation working and I'll be sending it out for comment >> soon. >> > > Hmm. This isn't the conclusion I came to. First off, I think there was a > bit of confusion in terminology. People were throwing around per-user vs. > per-machine, and that's not what Aaron was talking about here. The main > issue right now is that Chrome still has a notion of multiple profiles. > Even though most users don't use multiple user profile directories, many > use incognito, which is a separate user profile. Since chrome is currently > installed per-user, this makes things a bit murky when you say > per-installation. In reality, I think all we're currently talking about is > per-user vs. per-profile. When we have machine-wide installs again, we can > talk about per-machine extensions. > We do per-machine installs today when we are distributed with third-party installers that install per-machine. (This is new as of the 1.0 release last Thursday.) User profile data is still under %USERPROFILE%, but the app and binaries are under %PROGRAMFILES% instead of %LOCALAPPDATA%. We might need to make sure to distinguish an extension's code (potentially system-wide) from data/configuration/enabled state (always user-specific). > > The second thing I saw people blurring was installation vs. configuration. > Just because you install the extension doesn't mean it has to be enabled > across all profiles or that it should have the same configuration data. In > fact, I would argue that by default, they wouldn't be enabled across > profiles and wouldn't share configuration data. > > Some of this discussion is also messed up because multiple profiles isn't > really a first class citizen in our UI, so it's unclear how much time we > should spend worrying about the use case. > > Here's my take about how things should work > - installation of extensions should be per-user (with the possibility of > per-machine when we have it) > - configuration (including whether or not it's enabled) should be > per-profile > - incognito should be a special case - users can manually disable > extensions for incognito, but we also pass a special flag into extensions > when running in incognito mode so that if they do run, they can behave > appropriately (ideally this is how we'd like to see plugins work as well) > > Erik > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
