On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Erik Kay <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think these changes are an improvement, however it does feel a bit weird >> for it to be tab-based rather than URL based. With only a tab id, I think >> there will be some races. So if an extension script realizes that this page >> is special and should have a PageAction created, it calls the API, but as it >> does that, the tab navigates. Since all the API has is a tab id, there's no >> way for the browser to know whether the request is still valid or not. >> We'll likely continue to need a tab id as well since you could have >> multiple tabs open to the same URL. > > Wow, this is a great point, thanks for bringing it up. It seems like a > better solution would be to introduce the concept of history or page > or something. That is really the object you want to point to. Each tab > would have a history or page ID, and this is what you would send into > this API.
Though I don't understand the context of your discussion, we do have a notion of "page id" (which is a per-renderer monotonic integer) as well as both URL-level ids and page-visit ids in history (which are probably hard to get at since you have to round-trip through the history thread). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
