The extensions posse would like to point out that as of today's dev channel release (2.0.180.0), extensions are starting to be a bit more useful. We can now put little bits of UI in the chrome of Chrome, and some of the APIs are starting to come together. There is still quite a ways to go, but if you're interested in building extensions for Chrome, this might be a good time to start taking a look. There are some docs and samples here:
Following in what is apparently a tradition[1], one of our samples is a builtbot monitor. Here is what it looks like when it is running:
[image: buildbot1.png]
And when you mouseover it, it expands to give some more detail: [image: buildbot2.png]
I have found this to be useful, but I mostly keep it installed for the awesome swoopy animation when you mouseover. It can't be captured in still images -- you really must install and experience it in person.
*NOTE* * * If you were already playing with the extension system, there are some breaking changes in this release:
* All APIs are now at "chrome.foo.bar() instead of chromium.foo.bar()". * There were many other random renames. See the latest docs which should be up to date.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Boodman <a...@chromium.org> wrote: > Following in what is apparently a tradition[1], one of our samples is a builtbot monitor. Here is what it looks like when it is running:
Note that in the Content Scripts page, there are two things to fix -
The sample Content Script for google.com (replacing the image) does not work
because the document.images.length is 0.
Also, there is a mentioning in the comment of the API reference of
chromium.self.onConnect, should be chrome.self.onConnect, no?
Thank you for the hard work, already been experimenting.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:26, Aaron Boodman <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Argh, Gmail. You're not my friend anymore.
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Boodman <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Following in what is apparently a tradition[1], one of our samples is a
> builtbot monitor. Here is what it looks like when it is running:
> Note that in the Content Scripts page, there are two things to fix - > The sample Content Script for google.com (replacing the image) does not work > because the document.images.length is 0. > Also, there is a mentioning in the comment of the API reference of > chromium.self.onConnect, should be chrome.self.onConnect, no? > Thank you for the hard work, already been experimenting.
> ☆PhistucK
Thanks, I fixed the content script documentation reference to "chromium". I don't see what you mean though about the sample content script not working. It seems to work for me.
Oh, so sorry, when I go to google.com, it goes straight to my local domain (still English, at least) - generally annoying. After I clicked on the link to go to where I wanted to go in the first place, the script worked because there is an image there. Sorry! (Unify the structure of the main Google page in all of the locals!!! :P Or give me an option to always always always go to google.com :()
By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release, or is it not a requirement for it? (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.) And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new features (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the features currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be expected from 2?
> 2009/5/12 PhistucK <phist...@gmail.com>: > > Note that in the Content Scripts page, there are two things to fix - > > The sample Content Script for google.com (replacing the image) does not > work > > because the document.images.length is 0. > > Also, there is a mentioning in the comment of the API reference of > > chromium.self.onConnect, should be chrome.self.onConnect, no? > > Thank you for the hard work, already been experimenting.
> > ☆PhistucK
> Thanks, I fixed the content script documentation reference to > "chromium". I don't see what you mean though about the sample content > script not working. It seems to work for me.
By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release, or is
> it not a requirement for it?
No
> (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is > slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.)
How do you know when stable versions will ship? While it's taken a while to ship this one, I believe our channel changer estimates "about once a quarter".
> And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new features > (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the features > currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be expected from 2?
To expand on Peter's comment, we're more focused on specific features than
release numbers. The extension system will work its way to the stable
channel as soon as it's got enough APIs to be broadly useful.
The team is working really hard to get to that point as soon as possible;
we're excited to see it out in the wild too!
-Nick
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
> By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release, or
>> is it not a requirement for it?
> No
>> (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is
>> slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.)
> How do you know when stable versions will ship? While it's taken a while
> to ship this one, I believe our channel changer estimates "about once a
> quarter".
>> And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new
>> features (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the
>> features currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be
>> expected from 2?
Thank you for your answers, there has been no word regarding what is slated
for what release, so I hoped you could really clear that out - and you did.
About the Chrome 3 release time, a few months are also far away for some
people ;)
And if we go by the estimation, in a year we should have something like
Chrome 5? seems kind of too quick. Is that what you meant?
OK, so now things are far more clear, thank you very much for the meaningful
answers.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:42, Nick Baum <nickb...@chromium.org> wrote:
> To expand on Peter's comment, we're more focused on specific features than
> release numbers. The extension system will work its way to the stable
> channel as soon as it's got enough APIs to be broadly useful.
> The team is working really hard to get to that point as soon as possible;
> we're excited to see it out in the wild too!
> -Nick
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
>> By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release, or
>>> is it not a requirement for it?
>> No
>>> (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is
>>> slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.)
>> How do you know when stable versions will ship? While it's taken a while
>> to ship this one, I believe our channel changer estimates "about once a
>> quarter".
>>> And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new
>>> features (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the
>>> features currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be
>>> expected from 2?
Yeah, don't worry too much about Chrome 3 vs 5, the numbers are just a way
to keep track of releases.
As long as a year from now, you have a Chrome that has lots of cool new
features, we're doing the right thing!
> Thank you for your answers, there has been no word regarding what is slated
> for what release, so I hoped you could really clear that out - and you did.
> About the Chrome 3 release time, a few months are also far away for some
> people ;)
> And if we go by the estimation, in a year we should have something like
> Chrome 5? seems kind of too quick. Is that what you meant?
> OK, so now things are far more clear, thank you very much for the
> meaningful answers.
> ☆PhistucK
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:42, Nick Baum <nickb...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> To expand on Peter's comment, we're more focused on specific features than
>> release numbers. The extension system will work its way to the stable
>> channel as soon as it's got enough APIs to be broadly useful.
>> The team is working really hard to get to that point as soon as possible;
>> we're excited to see it out in the wild too!
>> -Nick
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
>>> By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release, or
>>>> is it not a requirement for it?
>>> No
>>>> (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is
>>>> slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.)
>>> How do you know when stable versions will ship? While it's taken a while
>>> to ship this one, I believe our channel changer estimates "about once a
>>> quarter".
>>>> And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new
>>>> features (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the
>>>> features currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be
>>>> expected from 2?
> Yeah, don't worry too much about Chrome 3 vs 5, the numbers are just a way
> to keep track of releases.
> As long as a year from now, you have a Chrome that has lots of cool new
> features, we're doing the right thing!
>> Thank you for your answers, there has been no word regarding what is
>> slated for what release, so I hoped you could really clear that out - and
>> you did.
>> About the Chrome 3 release time, a few months are also far away for some
>> people ;)
>> And if we go by the estimation, in a year we should have something like
>> Chrome 5? seems kind of too quick. Is that what you meant?
>> OK, so now things are far more clear, thank you very much for the
>> meaningful answers.
>> ☆PhistucK
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:42, Nick Baum <nickb...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> To expand on Peter's comment, we're more focused on specific features
>>> than release numbers. The extension system will work its way to the stable
>>> channel as soon as it's got enough APIs to be broadly useful.
>>> The team is working really hard to get to that point as soon as possible;
>>> we're excited to see it out in the wild too!
>>> -Nick
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
>>>> By the way - is the Extensions system slated for the Chrome 2 release,
>>>>> or is it not a requirement for it?
>>>> No
>>>>> (Because I saw some messages, though not from officials, saying it is
>>>>> slated for Chrome 3, which seems kind of far away.)
>>>> How do you know when stable versions will ship? While it's taken a
>>>> while to ship this one, I believe our channel changer estimates "about once
>>>> a quarter".
>>>>> And on the same note, the Beta branch is not being merged with new
>>>>> features (only really critical ones), as I noticed. Does this mean that the
>>>>> features currently on the Beta branch are more or less what is to be
>>>>> expected from 2?
Thanks for the update. In previous version, buildbot appeared on the
top of the Chrome and hid the tab bar and I ad to uninstall it. Now it
seems OK. Good to know Chrome has support for status bar, one
important feature.
I will take a look at the update and check (again) whether I am lucky
wrt to use bookmarking to do local storage.
-Jack
On 5月12日, 下午5时15分, Aaron Boodman <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
> The extensions posse would like to point out that as of today's dev channel
> release (2.0.180.0), extensions are starting to be a bit more useful. We can
> now put little bits of UI in the chrome of Chrome, and some of the APIs are
> starting to come together.
> There is still quite a ways to go, but if you're interested in building
> extensions for Chrome, this might be a good time to start taking a
> look. There are some docs and samples here:
> Following in what is apparently a tradition[1], one of our samples is a
> builtbot monitor. Here is what it looks like when it is running:
> [image: buildbot1.png]
> And when you mouseover it, it expands to give some more detail:
> [image: buildbot2.png]
> I have found this to be useful, but I mostly keep it installed for the
> awesome swoopy animation when you mouseover. It can't be captured in still
> images -- you really must install and experience it in person.
> *NOTE*
> *
> *
> If you were already playing with the extension system, there are some
> breaking changes in this release:
> * All APIs are now at "chrome.foo.bar() instead of chromium.foo.bar()".
> * There were many other random renames. See the latest docs which should be
> up to date.
> Thanks for the update. In previous version, buildbot appeared on the
> top of the Chrome and hid the tab bar and I ad to uninstall it. Now it
> seems OK. Good to know Chrome has support for status bar, one
> important feature.
> I will take a look at the update and check (again) whether I am lucky
> wrt to use bookmarking to do local storage.
> > The extensions posse would like to point out that as of today's dev
> channel
> > release (2.0.180.0), extensions are starting to be a bit more useful. We
> can
> > now put little bits of UI in the chrome of Chrome, and some of the APIs
> are
> > starting to come together.
> > There is still quite a ways to go, but if you're interested in building
> > extensions for Chrome, this might be a good time to start taking a
> > look. There are some docs and samples here:
> > Following in what is apparently a tradition[1], one of our samples is a
> > builtbot monitor. Here is what it looks like when it is running:
> > [image: buildbot1.png]
> > And when you mouseover it, it expands to give some more detail:
> > [image: buildbot2.png]
> > I have found this to be useful, but I mostly keep it installed for the
> > awesome swoopy animation when you mouseover. It can't be captured in
> still
> > images -- you really must install and experience it in person.
> > *NOTE*
> > *
> > *
> > If you were already playing with the extension system, there are some
> > breaking changes in this release:
> > * All APIs are now at "chrome.foo.bar() instead of chromium.foo.bar()".
> > * There were many other random renames. See the latest docs which should
> be
> > up to date.
|
