[Greasemonkey] Improved Greasemonkey

Jesse W. Asher jasher1 at tampabay.rr.com
Sun Apr 3 18:54:27 EDT 2005


I got an "Install Failed. Error code:-239" dialog box and then the 
installation window said "Chrome registration failed" when I tried.  
This was with Mozilla 1.7 on Solaris.

Aaron Boodman wrote:

>I couldn't actually install this. It just keeps saying "greasemonkey
>will uninstall on next restart" or whatever it says.
>
>Anybody else able to?
>
>On Apr 4, 2005 12:01 AM, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Mother of god. This is awesome, Ben. Thanks!
>>
>>It will take a long time to pick apart and integrate, though.
>>
>>More replies inline...
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I figured, now page script beating chrome? That just ain't right!
>>>      
>>>
>>Agreed. I had wanted to fix this another way, but it's queued behind a
>>list of other patches, plus regular work. Thanks for the quick fix. It
>>seems like you know quite a bit about XPCOM development. Can I hit you
>>up with questions about other things, as they come up?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Mozilla now supported; tested with 1.0. I'd imaging later versions are
>>>compatible.
>>>      
>>>
>>Awesome, this has been asked for a few times.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Consolidated Tools menuitems into a single new menu, as with Adblock.
>>>      
>>>
>>Not sure about this. Do other people like it?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Replaced the 40-line convert2RegExp() [eeew...] with the latest
>>>Adblock version (12 lines)
>>>      
>>>
>>Cool, thanks.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* When installing a user script from the tools menu, get the script text
>>>from the rendered document, rather than re-downloading it. This means
>>>that the gzip-compression bug is fixed, and it also gets rid of the
>>>rather ugly DM "flash".
>>>      
>>>
>>So you use XMLHttpRequest instead of the download manager? The reason
>>I used it was that I wanted some sort of visible status for
>>downloading the scripts. Not having it seems rude in a different way.
>>Though I do agree for the tools menu thing.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Do a full read of config.xml from disk only on first-run and on save,
>>>since those are the only possible change points.
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, technically, somebody could change it with a text editor. I
>>guess it's ok if they have to restart in those cases. Were you
>>experiencing delays, or did it just bother you?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Use XPCNativeWrapper to ensure access to native functions like
>>>addEventListener.
>>>      
>>>
>>Awesome.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* Added a dialog for users to edit scripts directly. Barebones but
>>>functional.
>>>      
>>>
>>I have a crazy GUI design going for this that I wanted to work on this
>>weekend, but didn't get to it. I guess this could be cool in the
>>meantime.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I also tightened up Mark's hijacker script, but that's about as useful
>>>as rewriting your idle loop.
>>>      
>>>
>>My idle loop? what?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>As it turns out, thanks to the sheer number
>>>of introspection points in the DOM, concealing actual modifications is a
>>>rather futile challenge. Event listeners are lost when their principal
>>>node is removed from the DOM tree, too. Now, chrome still wins, just not
>>>through Greasemonkey -- a dedicated extension need never touch the DOM
>>>itself, and can thus remain completely undetectable to page script.
>>>      
>>>
>>How so? You mean by modifying the source code before it hits the browser?
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Greasemonkey mailing list
>Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
>http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>
>  
>

-- 
Jesse W. Asher
CISSP-ISSAP,  CISM,  SCSA,  SCNA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/greasemonkey/attachments/20050403/17e5dae4/attachment.htm


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list