3 ms·
I don't see how this is different than Greasemonkey (other than addition of HTML/CSS). Is this more of a control issue due to Greasemonkey ported to Chrome?
by ieatpaste 17y ago
I don't see how this is different than Greasemonkey (other than addition of HTML/CSS). Is this more of a control issue due to Greasemonkey ported to Chrome?
- pufuwozu 17y agoI may be wrong but this extension shows more API's than Greasemonkey does. You're able to use Firefox's statusbar, tabs and notifications.
- natrius 17y agoIt has some extra functionality, but it also looks like it has less. There doesn't appear to be a way to execute cross-domain XHRs yet.
- abi 17y agoUse jquery for cross-domain xhr.
- natrius 17y agoThat's passable, but Greasemonkey does it in a more secure way than script tags, and it supports more features, like setting headers. http://wiki.greasespot.net/GM_xmlhttpRequest http://wiki.greasespot.net/GM_xmlhttpRequest
- jeresig 17y agoThis isn't using "script tags," it's using the (relatively) new Cross-Site XMLHttpRequest: http://ejohn.org/blog/cross-site-xmlhttprequest/ http://ejohn.org/blog/cross-site-xmlhttprequest/
- natrius 17y agoOh, that's nifty. I vaguely remember hearing about that, but I guess I'm so used to having to avoid using shiny new things that when the opportunity actually arises with extension code, it's hard to recall. Thanks for the info.
- DEinspanjer 17y agoThe big difference is that JetPack has a simple API to manipulate the browser chrome. There will always be some things that the existing extension model allows that JetPack would have problems delivering, but it allows a huge subset of extensions that just need to execute some JS, maybe tweak some chrome, and display some content to be much simpler for people to develop without having to learn XUL.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]