[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey: a futurist perspective

Jeremy Dunck jdunck at gmail.com
Wed Apr 20 13:01:21 EDT 2005


On 4/20/05, Neil Kandalgaonkar <neilk at brevity.org> wrote:
> That seems crazy to me. On the other hand, GM is the only thing out
> there that works today -- any other dream of a user-manipulable web
> seems pretty far off. So, never say never.

Well, this isn't the first time multiple processes have tried to
interoperate on the same context without prior knowledge of other
process contributions.

But it raises the complexity of making a successful script quite a
lot, and I think there will continue to be a sweet spot for shell
scripts as long as there is a shell, err, document object.

...I thought (for about a minute) about an byzantine implementation
which would run each script in its own view of the document, hiding
any changes made by the other scripts, but I can see this would not
scale out to any reasonable number of scripts without getting
decidedly wierd (if successful, from the script's perspective)
results.

I looked at how Eclipse does things, but I think that as long as the
content producer controls the base context, there aren't many lessons
we can take from Eclipse's contract-with-dependencies approach.

Which leads me to conclude that I won't be the one solving that
ambitious problem. :)


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list