I think this is a good opportunity to try and get userscripts APIs that are as close to WebExtension APIs as possible. Userscripts and full extensions have had some overlap of purpose and functionality for a while now, but achieved with very different APIs which always seemed a bit pointless to me. I was actually hoping that browser vendors would take note of Userscripts and design the webextension APIs close to that, but it seems the reverse will also be needed. Now, if the purpose, functionality or eventually even APIs were the same, why do we even need Userscripts? I think we still do for now, at least until webextensions get the best functions that made userscripts popular: url whitelist/blacklist activation, permissions, and for those developmentally inclined - very easy to create, without all the boilerplate of webext needed to get a simple contentscript running, very easy local editing of third-party scripts without trying to decypher directory structure and inter-file dependencies, and very easy sharing without need of browser vendor approval.
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.
