On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Matt Perry<[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > I wasn't really happy with the latest proposal for external connect. My > latest thinking is to get rid of the Extension object, and make > chrome.extension a module with connect, onConnect, and onConnectExternal > methods/events. With that model, it makes sense to have a > extension.connect([id], [object with name param]), where id=undefined means > connect to the current extension. > Anyway, the short answer is that I think raf's API convention could apply to > the connect() methods if we wanted.
Ok, that is exactly my preference too. - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
