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

Justin Mason jm at jmason.org
Tue Apr 19 12:28:09 EDT 2005

Hash: SHA1

Julien Couvreur writes:
> The simplicity of writing a GM script is definitely a key to success.
> We shouldn't have any kind of imposed packaging (xpi, zip) to deliver
> the script.

btw, as part of this -- any chance of helping user script developers a
little by allowing an easy way to reload a script without doing the full
"load .js file in window, hit reload, select Install User Script, hit OK,
hit OK" set of actions?   This quickly gets tiresome when you're
hacking on a user script...

I was thinking a good way to do this might be just to have an
off-by-default flag on the Manage User Script pane, indicating that that
script is in development and can be updated quickly; then have a
bookmarklet that will take the current window's URI, reload, and install
it quickly without user confirmation. For security, that could be
restricted to scripts that (a) have the "in development" tickbox on and
(b) are loaded from a local file:/// URI.

> On the other hand, if we can support more moderately complex scripts
> (injects HTML, has it's own resources or help page), while still
> keeping things easy for newcomers I think we should do it.
> If we decide to support some form of long literal strings as discussed
> in an other thread, we still keep the "1 script = 1 file", and we open
> many possibilities.
> Instead of having to explain how to package files into a zip, we'd
> have a tool or webpage that can help you generate the "literal
> section" of your script if you need to include a whole directory of
> binary images (too tedious to do by hand using the hixie conversion
> tool).

+1, that'd rock! ;)

- --j.
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list