On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, James Robinson<jam...@google.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. I've > created http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/InterExtensionCommunication with > the proposal and would appreciate if someone with an @chromium account could > link to it
Done. I also created a bug: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=17910 > This sounds like it should be possible, but since connect() takes an > optional param 'name' of type string already and the ID will also be of type > string it seems like this would be ambiguous. Yeah, I don't feel too strongly about it. I was bringing it up more as a possibility. I presume that whenever someone implements this they will pick the best of the several ways to phrase this. > We'll always know what extension the onConnectExternal event will be fired > at when the connectExternal() call is made, so at the very least we could > promise that no onConnectExternal event will be fired at an extension until > its background page, if there is one, has fully loaded. Queuing until all > extensions' background pages load is a simpler way to guarantee the same > thing. > > Using the manifests could be a way to have a clever implementation, but in > general the best you can get out of manifests is a partial order of > extensions and you might get cycles. True. I guess I am worried about blocking an extension from communicating with, eg, itself, until all other extensions have loaded their background pages. This doesn't seem fair. - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
