[Greasemonkey] Improved Greasemonkey
Jesse W. Asher
jasher1 at tampabay.rr.com
Mon Apr 4 17:00:00 EDT 2005
Doesn't look like the script installation is working as expected. I
tried to install some scripts and it didn't say anything at all. I
checked in the scripts directory and nothing was there. On a lark, I
copied all the scripts I had installed for Firefox into the Mozilla
scripts directory and they worked. It looks like just the installation
part isn't working. At least that's what it looks like on this end.
Mozilla 1.7.6 running on XP Pro.
Thanks for working on this! I personally like to Mozilla rather than
Firefox so I'm a pretty happy camper! ;-)
Ben Karel wrote:
> After reading
> I figured, now page script beating chrome? That just ain't right!
> So, I gave Greasemonkey a pretty significant makeover (
> http://eschew.org/projects/mozilla/greasemonkey/ )
> Brief changelog, see above dir for (slightly) fuller commentary:
> * Mozilla now supported; tested with 1.0. I'd imaging later versions
> are compatible.
> * Consolidated Tools menuitems into a single new menu, as with Adblock.
> * Replaced the 40-line convert2RegExp() [eeew...] with the latest
> Adblock version (12 lines)
> * 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".
> Also saves on the order of 100 lines of code.
> * Do a full read of config.xml from disk only on first-run and on
> save, since those are the only possible change points.
> * Use XPCNativeWrapper to ensure access to native functions like
> * Added a dialog for users to edit scripts directly. Barebones but
> The XPCNativeWrappers also means that this copy of Greasemonkey can
> let user scripts run even if the page sets *.appendChild and
> *.addEventListener to null (Dean Edwards and Mark Pilgrim's
> techniques, respsectively).
> It took a day longer than I thought it would, mostly due to Mozilla
> 1.0's idiosyncracies. Oh well.
> Now, no guarantees about stability, but it's been working pretty well
> for me.
> I also tightened up Mark's hijacker script, but that's about as useful
> as rewriting your idle loop. 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.
> Oh, yes, there's also *cough* an icon for the Extension Manager:
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
More information about the Greasemonkey