On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Phil Crosby <phil.cro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Aaron, thanks for the followup. I have the content script set to > run at document_start. > > I'm not sure I follow about the localStorage limitation in content > scripts; I wrote a small test which demonstrates that referencing and > modifying "localStorage" in a content script modifies the same > localStorage that the webpage has access to. This is with Mac Chrome > 4.0.249.12.
That's surprising. My understanding was that it did not work, but hooray, I guess that has been fixed. > I could use the page's localStorage as a cache but as you mentioned > that has the downside of creating localStorage all over the place, > which is likely to never go away. A more tidy hack would be to use > session storage (which I think is coming soon to Chrome) as a cache, > but then I would have access to the data I need only on subsequent > loads of the page during that browser session -- not the first load. > > I guess the ideal solution for my needs would be for content scripts > to be able to access the background page's localStorage directly, and > barring that, to have a lower-latency connection to the background > page. Since the latency was purposefully engineered for performance > reasons, the former is probably the more realistic feature request. Yeah, I think we already have things setup so that multiple processes can access local storage synchronously (note that behind the scenes this implies a global lock). We would just need to make it so that access from a content script acesses the extensions' local storage, not the page's. - a -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=en.
