[chromium-dev] Re: Proposal: chrome.tabs.executeContentScript()
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Erik Kay wrote: > One naming thought for you. I wonder if the methods should be named > "loadScript" and "loadCSS"? I know that this is effectively the same thing > with JS, but "execute" sounds like it's just running something temporarily > (maybe in the page's context) and forgetting about it, while load is loading > it into the page and leaving it there for later reference. I don't have a > strong opinion about this, it's just what popped into my head. > When you say no attempt is made to dedupe these, again it sounds like the > only downside is that the code has been run twice. Even for transient code, > the newly created context would stick around until the next GC, If the code > did anything more substantial, it would also keep this context and extra > memory alive. Perhaps this is just solved by stronger wording in the doc. I see what you mean. Since we're creating a new context, it is a heavier operation than "execute" might imply. On the other hand, to me "load" sounds like it is something that doesn't have any side-effects. It might not seem like it could be used to actually do anything, other than load a library. In JavaScript, loading and executing are the same thing, so it's just a matter of what will confuse less often. I'm going to leave it executeScript() since it also accepts a simple string of JavaScript, which is definitely not implied by "load". I added a bunch of comments about the weight though, and also changed the name "executeCSS" to "insertCSS" because you don't really "execute" CSS. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:44 AM, disya2 wrote: > Concerning the following: > // tabId: Optional, defaults to selected tab of focused window if > omitted. > > Maybe it would be better to use current window instead of focused? The > caller is extension script and it may have some state variables or > something which belongs to current window while extension script in > focused window may have different state. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Erik Kay wrote: > The problem with that is that background pages don't have a "current window" > the way that toolstrips do. Great catch, disya. You are right that it would be more consistent, with, eg chrome.tabs.getSelected() to get the "current" window as opposed to the topmost one. I've changed this. Erik, the way that getCurrent() works is that it returns the window the code is executing in, but if there is no such window, then it falls back to the topmost window. - a --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Proposal: chrome.tabs.executeContentScript()
This is really great! One naming thought for you. I wonder if the methods should be named "loadScript" and "loadCSS"? I know that this is effectively the same thing with JS, but "execute" sounds like it's just running something temporarily (maybe in the page's context) and forgetting about it, while load is loading it into the page and leaving it there for later reference. I don't have a strong opinion about this, it's just what popped into my head. When you say no attempt is made to dedupe these, again it sounds like the only downside is that the code has been run twice. Even for transient code, the newly created context would stick around until the next GC, If the code did anything more substantial, it would also keep this context and extra memory alive. Perhaps this is just solved by stronger wording in the doc. Erik On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the quick feedback. I've modified the proposal to > support also executing strings of JavaScript. Detailed comments > inline. > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jói wrote: > > This seems very useful to me. > > Thanks! > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jói wrote: > > Perhaps it would be useful to also let extensions directly execute > > snippets of script, both for convenience and so that they don't need > > to be static files that are baked into the extension. You could > > imagine e.g. a content script that is dynamically generated based on > > preferences. > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Evan Martin wrote: > > Content to inject: > > What do I do if I have a string I'd like to inject? This may seem > > silly, but imagine you have a JS file that does most of the work and > > you'd like to do the equivalent of "var kDataToOperateOn = ...; > >
[chromium-dev] Re: Proposal: chrome.tabs.executeContentScript()
Thanks everyone for the quick feedback. I've modified the proposal to support also executing strings of JavaScript. Detailed comments inline. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jói wrote: > This seems very useful to me. Thanks! On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jói wrote: > Perhaps it would be useful to also let extensions directly execute > snippets of script, both for convenience and so that they don't need > to be static files that are baked into the extension. You could > imagine e.g. a content script that is dynamically generated based on > preferences. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Evan Martin wrote: > Content to inject: > What do I do if I have a string I'd like to inject? This may seem > silly, but imagine you have a JS file that does most of the work and > you'd like to do the equivalent of "var kDataToOperateOn = ...; >
[chromium-dev] Re: Proposal: chrome.tabs.executeContentScript()
One pie-in-the-sky idea I have is to pre-compile content scripts. Restricting the API to static JS files would allow us to do such a thing. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jói wrote: > > This seems very useful to me. > > Perhaps it would be useful to also let extensions directly execute > snippets of script, both for convenience and so that they don't need > to be static files that are baked into the extension. You could > imagine e.g. a content script that is dynamically generated based on > preferences. > > Cheers, > Jói > > > On Jul 15, 2:26 pm, Aaron Boodman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman > wrote: > > > Hence: > http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-document... > > > > Typo. Should have been: > http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-document... > > > > - a > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Proposal: chrome.tabs.executeContentScript()
This seems very useful to me. Perhaps it would be useful to also let extensions directly execute snippets of script, both for convenience and so that they don't need to be static files that are baked into the extension. You could imagine e.g. a content script that is dynamically generated based on preferences. Cheers, Jói On Jul 15, 2:26 pm, Aaron Boodman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > > Hence:http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-document... > > Typo. Should have > been:http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-document... > > - a --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
