[Greasemonkey] When is a user script too complex? (was: ANN: Chicago Transit ...)

Mark Pilgrim pilgrim at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 14:22:15 EDT 2005

On 4/19/05, Steve Krulewitz <shooz at mm.st> wrote:
> In the short time that Greasemonkey has been around, we've seen more
> user scripts created than Firefox extensions (well, that's just a guess,
> but it is probably true).  This, of course, is due to the low barrier of
> entry for creating a user script.  Should we not give people the tools
> to support advanced features when their user scripts grow in complexity?

Rather than build more and more extension-like functionality into GM
itself, I would strongly support some sort of (separate) migration
tool that helped you convert a user script into an extension.  Someone
hinted in another thread that such a tool might already be in the

There is already the Extension Builder Extension to help build an
extension from scratch (it has a GUI for the RDF files, and it shells
out to a zip program to package it all up).  A GM-specific derivative
of that shouldn't be too difficult (he says blithely ;-).  I have no
experience in such things but I would be happy to test/document/etc.

> That said, I think I'm in the "a user script must be a single file"
> camp.



More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list