On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Boodman<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Aaron Boodman<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Rafael Weinstein<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> extension.connect(name) >> >> So you mean this would change to extension.connect(extensionid, >> connectionname)? >> >> Right now connecting to other extensions is not supported, but I guess >> that could work if the id is "not supported" right now. >> >> Matt what was your latest plan on connecting to other extensions? That >> should probably inform this decision. >> >>> toolstrip.expand(height, url, callback) >>> toolstrip.collapse(url, callback) >> >> What would the subject for these be? There is no identifier for a >> toolstrip in the system today.
We could change it so that rather than the "current" toolstrip, it's based on the window object for the toolstrip (what we got back from the call to getToolstrips()). This might feel more in line with the rest of our API. Today, you call toolstrip_window.chrome.toolstrip.expand(...), which feels a little weird to me. I could be convinced either way here. Erik >> >>> tabs.connect(name) >> >> I actually believe there is a first argument to this, the tab id >> already. I guess the second arg could change to an object with a name >> property, I don't feel too strongly about it. >> >>> windows.getAll(populate, callback >> >> This one does not make sense to have a subject since it is defined to >> mean all windows. >> >>> |childIds| should be contained in a <details> object: >>> bookmarks.onChildrenReordered(id, childIds) >> >> Again, I think it would be probably smarter to define this as you >> suggest, but I don't feel too strongly about it. >> >>> |reply| is an object which contains the pageActionId and another object of >>> data about the action. This should be flattened: >>> pageActions[<pageActionId>](reply) >> >> Agree on this one: the ID should be torn out of the object to be more >> symmetrical with other things in the system. >> >>> Anyone else as into being as pedantic as I am? >> >> I agree with some of these, but for some of them, it just seems like >> moving code around. I don't think things need to be 100% consistent, I >> think this should just be more like a pattern that we tend to follow. >> >> - a >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" 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-extensions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
