As the admin of greasyfork.org, if you need any statistics on API usage, I 
can provide it. If you decide to change any APIs, I can also provide some 
sort of notification to authors to update their scripts.

On Friday, 12 May 2017 13:44:06 UTC-5, Anthony Lieuallen wrote:
>
> Greasemonkey is over ten years old, as are most of its special APIs for 
> user scripts.  They're all (save GM_xmlhttpRequest) synchronous calls, 
> which made sense at the time.
>
> In Firefox 57 legacy extensions are gone, only WebExtensions remain.  
> Webext is different in several ways, including parent (chrome) and child 
> (content) process separation, communication/coordination via message 
> passing, and concentration on asynchronous APIs.  As I understand it, 
> there's no way to "block" on an async backing API.
>
> This leaves several paths forward for Greasemonkey, in no particular order:
>
>    1. Do our best to emulate the old APIs, with possibly slow, buggy, 
>    inefficient, or inferior functionality.
>    2. Add new similar APIs, but with asynchronous interfaces.
>       1. With the same names as old APIs.
>       2. With new names/organization.
>       3. Give up on supporting special APIs.
>    4. Give up completely, don't even port Greasemonkey to webext.
>    
> I've got my own opinions here, but before I voice them I'd like to hear 
> from the community.  What would you (script authors especially) like to see 
> happen?  Do you have other ideas I haven't listed?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"greasemonkey-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to