[Greasemonkey] APIs

[Adam Judson]

Not sure you need to add more API's.  I'd prefer to see you 
add a way for extensions to add GM api's.  The user's could install
the libraries (extensions) their scripts needed.  

Keep GM as the framework, and let extensions add the various components.

I believe there is a a bug about this...

http://mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10969


Adam



On 04/09/05, Lenny Domnitser <ldrhcp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/05, Martin Sarsale <martin at malditainternet.com> wrote:
> > GM_remoteGetValue (and Set): works exactly like gm_setValue but stores
> > the data (possibly crypted) in a remote, user configurable server.
> > then, you can have the same preferences/configs/whatever on different
> > computers. The remote server should be configured script-wide. The
> > server should have a REST simple interface and we should release a
> > open source version of it.
> 
> This seems like something that is very useful for one or two scripts,
> but is not "reimplement[ed] ... over and over inside user scripts", as
> Aaron said the criteria were. I would certainly like to see you (or
> somebody) implement this, but it doesn't seem like a wide enough
> problem to solve as a GM_* API.
> 
> In fact, if this were to be implemented as GM_remoteGetValue(myUri,
> myVarName), this would create more problems than it solves, since
> people not wishing to keep their data on a script-writer's server will
> have to rewrite or avoid the script.
> 
> A better solution, in my opinion, would be to write a new script value
> storage system (a rewrite has already been discussed) that could
> transparently write to and read from local disk or a remote location
> based on the user's preference, from the standard GM_[gs]etValue
> functions.
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>