Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
blog.nparashuram.com
Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#2If you want to create a cross-browser extension, you can use an API such as Kynetx, Webmynd, CrossRider, or KangoExtensions. Links and pros/cons can be found here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4913123/cross-browser-ext...
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#3This is really just about writing a browser extension that injects code into a page and does nothing else. Firefox extensions can do all sorts of things (modify the browser UI, call functions in system libraries, create protocol handlers, perform raw IO) that other environments don't permit.
Many of these things probably can't be done through Jetpack/Add-on SDK, but, for better or for worse, Firefox's extension mechanism is vastly more powerful than that of Chrome or Opera.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#4Chrome, Opera and Safari have a very similar extension architecture. If very easy to port on extension to the other 2 borwsers, as long as:
* the API is there. For example only chrome can block HTTP requests, and access headers.
* The UI element is there. Safari has no page action, for example
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#5This is really just about writing a browser extension that injects code into a page and does nothing else. Firefox extensions can do all sorts of things (modify the browser UI, call functions in system libraries, create protocol handlers, perform raw IO) that other environments don't permit. Many of these things probably can't be done through Jetpack/Add-on SDK, but, for better or for worse, Firefox's extension mecha…
It is true that Firefox's extension mechanism is more powerful than Chrome or Opera. However, some of the things that you list (such as calling functions in system libraries and performing raw IO) can be done in Chrome and I think in Opera by creating an NPAPI extension in C/C++.
Edit: I realize it is harder to write it this way. It is also harder to write Firefox extensions in C/C++ instead of in their JavaScript APIs. The point is that some things not possible in other browsers' JavaScript APIs are possible if you create NPAPI extensions (although some things such as certain UI flexibility are only available in Firefox.)
Edit: You can also register protocol handlers via JavaScript, although they need to start with the string 'web+' which makes this less powerful than what is possible in Firefox.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#6This is really just about writing a browser extension that injects code into a page and does nothing else. Firefox extensions can do all sorts of things (modify the browser UI, call functions in system libraries, create protocol handlers, perform raw IO) that other environments don't permit. Many of these things probably can't be done through Jetpack/Add-on SDK, but, for better or for worse, Firefox's extension mecha…
It is true that Firefox's extension mechanism is more powerful than Chrome or Opera. However, some of the things that you list (such as calling functions in system libraries and performing raw IO) can be done in Chrome and I think in Opera by creating an NPAPI extension in C/C++. Edit: I realize it is harder to write it this way. It is also harder to write Firefox extensions in C/C++ instead of in their JavaScript AP…
The NPAPI route is hard, cross-browser and cross platform is harder. For simple, DOM manipulating extensions, this would be so much easy.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#7This is really just about writing a browser extension that injects code into a page and does nothing else. Firefox extensions can do all sorts of things (modify the browser UI, call functions in system libraries, create protocol handlers, perform raw IO) that other environments don't permit. Many of these things probably can't be done through Jetpack/Add-on SDK, but, for better or for worse, Firefox's extension mecha…
Raw power comes with a price: the learning curve for building classic FF addons is steep and confused.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#8I know this is off-topic but I need to rant against Google/Blogger's mobile version of their platform since I keep running into it whenever I'm browsing HN on my iPhone.
When I view this article on an iPhone 4S, Blogger adds in a swipe feature that goes to the next article (or previous article if you swipe left).
This "feature" is driving me nuts because there are tables that break the screen on the iPhone where I cannot move around to view it because Blogger automatically assumes I want to read the next article.
If someone from Google is reading this, or even better Blogger. Please take this feature out. It is a really annoying experience.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#9I know this is off-topic but I need to rant against Google/Blogger's mobile version of their platform since I keep running into it whenever I'm browsing HN on my iPhone. When I view this article on an iPhone 4S, Blogger adds in a swipe feature that goes to the next article (or previous article if you swipe left). This "feature" is driving me nuts because there are tables that break the screen on the iPhone where I ca…
Google added the same "feature" to the mobile Reader app and it caused the same problem. It happened to me every time I used it. Solution? I stopped using Reader. Well done, Google.
Re: Writing Browser Extensions - Comparing Firefox, Chrome and Opera
#10Last time I looked it was a maze trying to figure out FF extensions. A painful long learning curve. I wrote my first chrome/safari extension about 5 mins after I read the intro.