My favorites | Sign in
Project Home Downloads Wiki Issues Code Search
New issue   Search
for
  Advanced search   Search tips   Subscriptions
Issue 18: Wishlist: Chrome does not have an addon-system
866 people starred this issue.
Comments by non-members will not trigger notification emails to users who starred this issue.
Back to list
Status:  Verified
Owner:  a...@chromium.org
Closed:  Dec 2009

Restricted
  • Only users with Commit permission may comment.


Sign in to add a comment
 
Reported by florian....@gmail.com, Sep 2, 2008
Product Version      : all
URLs (if applicable) : not applicable
Other browsers tested:
Add OK or FAIL after other browsers where you have tested this issue:
     Safari 3: Fail
    Firefox 3: Pass
         IE 7: partial Fail

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Try to install an adblocking-addon
2. Fail
What is the expected result?
The expected result is an addon-API similiar to Firefox Extensions,
allowing third parties to enhance the functionality of Chrome

What happens instead?
Chrome offers next to no customization-options.

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if
possible.
Not applicable
Sep 2, 2008
#2 esparza....@gmail.com
Also occurs on my system.  When is this going to get fixed?
Sep 2, 2008
#3 hutt...@gmail.com
Amen to this...
The "open marketplace" of add-ons for Firefox makes it very easy for 
3rd...4th...1039th parties to create their own extensions: you don't have to 
recompile your browser to use them! And your niche extension can be easily available 
to enthusiasts, without bogging down the browser for everyone else.

For Chrome not to be thus extensible would a big leap backwards IMO.


Sep 2, 2008
#4 nidd...@gmail.com
I agree to that. 
If I can't even add a third-party extension, this browser won't stay long on my 
computer. Of Firefox I use extensions to control my media player, see my gmail status 
without using an external program or block any script I want
Sep 2, 2008
#5 vekexa...@gmail.com
I agree to ... This is the bad side of this browser :(

Sep 2, 2008
#6 gbarrabia
1 more vote!


Sep 2, 2008
#7 igotnosk...@gmail.com
I can reproduce this bug
Sep 2, 2008
#8 evan@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Untriaged
Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature
Sep 2, 2008
#9 marti...@gmail.com
In a way Chrome is extensible by letting you add new search engines to the searchbar,
since this seems to be the only place the user needs to touch this browser.
I agree that a way to modify this browser is needed, but I don't think that should be
browser extensions, perhaps they should be website extensions. All though I assume an
ad blocker, a parental control and a kiosk mode should probe valuable extensions to
this browser.
Sep 2, 2008
#10 carmageddon
I agree, to really beat IE, FF3 and all others such as Avant etc, we need addons 
functionality - and badly.

For example on my FF3 I have tab manager addon, which allows me to relocate tabs to 
the side of my screen, and use all the dead space I have on the sides of 22" display, 
as well as have certain tab hirrarchy - ie new tabs opened from tab A will be idented 
under A, much like in programming structures.
Sep 2, 2008
#11 gser...@gmail.com
1 more vote.
The internet without adblock and flash block is not nice.
Sep 2, 2008
#12 ast...@gmail.com
This issue is the only one that prevent me from setting chrome as default browser
Sep 2, 2008
#13 edag...@gmail.com
This is the one feature I really miss and, like astorz, prevents me from setting 
chrome as my default browser.  While providing an "addon" API may affect security, 
this can be also accomplished by having the ability to have a URL black list. Allow 
the black list to have options for 

1) subscribing to a list
2) using wild cards 

This will help in both parental control and ad block.


Sep 2, 2008
#14 abhijeet...@gmail.com
+1 ... this should go on the priority list.
Sep 2, 2008
#15 darklor...@gmail.com
+1 from me.

Addons are needed badly and fast.
Sep 3, 2008
#16 jeril842...@gmail.com
ya correct
+5 from me
Sep 3, 2008
#17 iam...@gmail.com
I'd be ok with add-ons if Google built-in features that I would like... but of course 
it would get bloated with features I don't want.  So, having an add-on system is 
needed.  Specifically, I'm looking for Google Notebook functionality and proper 
Google (hosted) Bookmark functionality.
Sep 3, 2008
#18 andre.ro...@gmail.com
1+ 
We need Addons
Sep 3, 2008
#19 jaipurba...@gmail.com
Definitely a must have feature
+1 from my side
Sep 3, 2008
#20 christop...@gmail.com
Support for Firefox Extensions would be UBER ... or at least an interface that makes 
them easy to port. I am aware that I'm probably asking to much, but on the other 
hand, if anyone is capable of doing something like that, it's got to be the folks at 
Google. :-)
Sep 3, 2008
#21 i.ha...@gmail.com
It would be nice if an ad broker company supported ad blocking functionality in its
browser. We all can and will hope. Realistically though, waiting till pigs fly is
probably more productive.
Sep 3, 2008
#22 MadCatMk...@gmail.com
Compatibility (ports?) with firefox oriented plugins would be more than great.
Sep 3, 2008
#23 phantomr...@gmail.com
Much needed.
Sep 3, 2008
#24 oppifjel...@gmail.com
I propose to implement Firefox Extension Engine on Chrome. There is already a large 
database of extensions working for firefox. I think that its more reliable to use 
that engine instead of writing a new one from scratch.
Sep 3, 2008
#25 nicolas....@gmail.com
I don't think it would be easy (possible?) to make Firefox plugins work. Addons are written in XUL and JS. 
Firefox itself is written in XUL! I don't think a non-XUL browser (or maybe even a XUL browser that doesn't 
have the same element structure as Firefox) could be made to run Firefox addons. 

Sep 3, 2008
#27 RicardoJ...@gmail.com
Firefox Extension Engine in Chrome : +1
Sep 3, 2008
#28 samucode@gmail.com
Please add this.
Sep 3, 2008
#29 Nick...@gmail.com
Please add
Sep 3, 2008
#30 graywo...@gmail.com
Without addons this browser is no match for FF.
Sep 3, 2008
#31 evgeny.zislis
Safari for Mac has safariadblock.sourceforge.net, it's just the Safari on Windows 
that FAILs
Sep 3, 2008
#32 ondrej.v...@gmail.com
Yes, please, addons are a must, although I wouldn't mind seeing some of it built-in 
(e.g. integration with other Google products - GMail, PROPER Google Bookmarks [not 
the way it's done in the Toolbar], Reader, ...).
Sep 3, 2008
#33 dafire@gmail.com
instead spamming the comments you should star the issue... that is much better voting
then +1 spam since it shows how many people are interested in this.
Sep 3, 2008
#34 vekexa...@gmail.com
Please Click Over the star... in This way you will make more importance to this topic
Sep 3, 2008
#35 dpoll...@gmail.com
I noticed this bug immediately when I tried to check weather.com and was bombarded 
with advertisements.  Add-On's please
Sep 3, 2008
#36 email524...@yahoo.com
Agree with everything here.  To add something:  Please, do NOT build ad blocking /
script filtering / other random feature that people want into the main browser and
consider it a substitute for a proper addon system.  If google want's to have their
own adblock system, release it as an addon;  even have it installed by default if you
want, but don't bloat the code with lots of features only some people will use, and
don't think for a moment that "it's built into the main browser" is a substitute for
addon support.
Sep 3, 2008
#37 jasonyok...@gmail.com
you honestly think google would build in a default ad-blocker program? lol.
Sep 3, 2008
#38 wilson.n...@gmail.com
If Google expects to go anywhere with Chrome they better have a plug in system and i 
honestly think that the browser settings are too simplistic for the power user. This 
is bad as there are millions of power suers out there who like total control over 
their browser and thus they use firefox.

For those of you ad blockers out there , just go and edit your hosts file to exclude 
any addsite ;)
Sep 3, 2008
#39 unknownb...@gmail.com
Well, who says Google is trying to compete with Firefox?  Google has not said that.  
I think Google Chrome is the perfect complement to Firefox in that regard and would 
enjoy it staying simple.

Even so, I don't think Google Chrome will become _and stay_ popular without some sort 
of system here, and I have no doubt Google knows this.

-[Unknown]
Sep 3, 2008
#40 aaronkr...@me.com
it would be great if this bug stopped getting spammed by "me too"s. that said, my
thoughts on this:

addons should be in javascript. there are already mechanisms in place to provide
safe, "sandboxed" javascript environments which means very little need be added for
scripting. also, with google gears built-in you could allow plugins to access some of
that functionality (data storage for example?). V8 would also provide a very fast,
efficient scripting engine on top of which you could build a very sophisticated and
elegant plugin framework.

for reference on how these things are accomplished i would recommend you look at KDE
4's javascript bindings, particularly in how they are used with plasma.
Sep 4, 2008
#41 hepcat...@gmail.com
Did you guys not read the announcement and information on Google page Addons are
going to be called gears.  It an early .2 beta the browsers been out less that a
week. I am sure Google is working hard to get Gear functionality in there but in a
early beta I think they want to track bugs in a clean browser environment for a bit
before giving us the add on interface.  It makes a lot sense from a developers
standpoint. When they have the bugs we find worked out and a stable "by google
standards" they will have the add on interface added then.  

Sep 4, 2008
#42 omi...@gmail.com
I strongly support adding an Add-Ons feature to Google Chrome. Firefox has an Add-Ons 
system (Extensions and Themes). Opera has its own system (Widgets, Skins, and User 
JavaScripts). Even Internet Explorer has Add-Ons (see ieaddons.com). This feature is 
implemented in pretty much every modern web browser. Since Google Chrome is based on 
WebKit instead of some other rendering engine like Gecko, I do not think it would 
necessarily be best to try to duplicate what Firefox does in the exact same way. I 
suggest finding some innovative new way to do it so that the Add-Ons, like Plugins, 
are isolated as separate processes and do not crash the browser if they malfunction, 
in keeping with Google Chrome's approach to doing things in a multiprocessing 
fashion. I strongly urge that this feature be added, but make sure you do it the 
right way so that the browser continues to be stable, fast, and secure. If that means 
delaying the addition of this feature slightly so that you can test it thoroughly and 
make sure it works perfectly, I am fine with that. But for the time being, I will 
continue to use Firefox as my primary browser because of the powerful functionality 
added to the browser by Firefox Extensions, and I will continue to monitor 
developments regarding Google Chrome closely. I have confidence that Google Chrome 
will add more features to become more competitive with other browsers, because 
otherwise there is little incentive for end-users to switch to this new browser, and 
that would conflict with Google's goals for this project. I look forward to the time 
when Google Chrome has matured to the point where I can use it for all my web-
browsing purposes, because I do find its new browser architecture to be quite 
brilliant.
Sep 4, 2008
#43 dafire@gmail.com
guys.. du you read the dev-chronium group ?

a dev already said that there will be a plugin system
Sep 4, 2008
#44 skymonke...@gmail.com
If you don't want ads, simply install Privoxy on your machine - that way every 
browser is protected without the need for a plugin.
Sep 4, 2008
#45 pooley...@gmail.com
it's a beta... what do you people expect... get your tongue out of Google's arse and 
wait for a candidate release before you all start bitching about no add-ons
Sep 4, 2008
#46 dafire@gmail.com
most google products are beta forever... like gmail, google calendar, google 
documents.. I wouldn't expect an release candidate this century.
Sep 4, 2008
#47 talena...@gmail.com
I agree, Chrome needs this feature, if it wants to compete in the web-browser 
industry.
Sep 4, 2008
#48 sinyagov...@gmail.com
I would like to see ad blocking addon in Chrome. Probably it can be a built-in 
feature. Just like "Block everything including http://xxx.com*
Sep 5, 2008
#49 alexey5085
Extensions are a good thing. However if you install third-party plugins, you can't be
sure of their safety. So if you want a rock-solid browser, either you need to have
some extension certification, or just include following features into the browser itself:
1. Adblocking
2. Parental control
3. proper bookmark management (more powerful).
4. Better downloader that allows to pause and continue downloads
Sep 5, 2008
#50 devli...@gmail.com
It would be nice to have addons and extensions really simple.  I mean, greasemonkey 
single JS file simple, verses the Firefox XUL/JS method.  From the sounds of things, 
gears might be able to do some extension of the browser, but, it looks more like a 
way for sites to becomes faster/store content on your PC.

When addons are added, I'd really love to see a dead-simple JS system, that used 
gears for processing and storage.

--Robin 
Sep 5, 2008
#51 guillaum...@gmail.com
Can you count one more vote for this suggestion please ? :)
Sep 5, 2008
#52 jeremy.t.mccurdy@gmail.com
Extensions are the only reason why I might choose Firefox over Chrome at the moment. 
For the love of god create an extension API.
Sep 5, 2008
#53 SPSaarela
+1

As been said, only thing holding me back at FF3 is lack of extensions in Chrome.
Sep 5, 2008
#54 bunosfar...@gmail.com
Uhm, you can download multiple extensions for Safari on a Mac at 
http://www.pimpmysafari.com/
Sep 6, 2008
#56 alasdair...@gmail.com
+1
Super important feature.
Sep 6, 2008
#57 bothra.c...@gmail.com
its still in beta so we have to wait till all major bugs are fixed.
Sep 6, 2008
#58 ForChr...@gmail.com
An add-on/extension features has already been confirmed.

Google plans Chrome extensions 

"We don't have that in the beta today, but we definitely plan an extension API
[application programming interface]," Sundar Pichai, Google vice president of product
management, said at the Chrome launch event in Mountain View, California, on Tuesday.
"It is one of the things we will get to next."

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39484275,00.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10031764-92.html
http://www.chromeplugins.org/extensions/google-chrome-extensions/
Sep 6, 2008
#60 phistuck
Add-ons are a must have functionality in this era. Easy XPI porting (or minimal or 
full support) will be very much welcomed and helpful in getting easy and efficient 
market share.
Sep 9, 2008
#61 theguard...@gmail.com
Google guys, what about making chrome use Firefox addons?. Anyway, ability to program
addons would be great.
Sep 9, 2008
#62 viro...@gmail.com
Mcafee Site Advisor for chrome, flashblock, and so on, and so forth. We need an add-
on system for this great new browser!
Sep 9, 2008
#63 john.m...@gmail.com
Adblocking is the only issue keeping me from using this browser as my primary under
Windows.

Anything that could import Adblock Plus lists would be perfect.
Sep 10, 2008
#64 sean.ait...@gmail.com
Integration with a powerful bookmarking system such as del.icio.us and/or Google 
Bookmarks would be nice. I use del.icio.us religiously, and this is a pain. The 
browser links work OK. Can't wait for gears support.
Sep 11, 2008
#65 killm...@gmail.com
add me to the wishlist, Chrome needs a plugin/add-on system, until then Firefox wins.
Sep 11, 2008
#66 anan...@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Sep 11, 2008
#67 edag...@gmail.com
For the ad block Functionality spefifically, I found a workaround using Hostsman with 
HpHosts , ( http://www.abelhadigital.com/ and http://hosts-file.net.

The other issue I have is " How do we get siteAdvisor or WOT to work with Chrome?". 

I am using more of Chrome now, still not my default browser.
Sep 12, 2008
#68 Hunn...@gmail.com
I'd say that it could be good to perhaps talk with the guys at Mozilla and maybe work 
something out with the plugins.
There are already a massive amount of plugins there, and Google is already close with 
them as it is. 

There will be potential problems with some plugins, such as those that refer to 
specific sections in Firefox that aren't in Chrome, but i'm sure it could be emulated 
in some way.
For example, there is no bottom bar like there is in Firefox, which is a holding 
position for many plugins icons. (Greasemonkey, Stylish, etc)
This could be fixed just by adding one in, but it will only show if there is anything 
using it. 
Same could be applied to many other areas of the browser.  

This could save a bunch of time for everyone who develops plugins.
I mean, when you think about it, it will take quite a while for other developers to 
create their plugins for Chrome. (if they even bother!)
1) Chrome gets add-on API, loads of people flock to it and develop loads of plugins
  X
2) Chrome gets Add-on API that can emulate other browsers interfaces, everyone is 
happy?
... [tick] (forgot the code)
It might increase the work required to produce it, but it pays off in the end because 
when it is done, it instantly has access to loads of plugins already done.

Sorry for the long comment.  Just spreading out some potential ideas and hope it 
causes some sparks "out there".


Sep 16, 2008
#69 gclab...@gmail.com
Hey guys, do remember that Chrome is actually very VERY extendable. 
Its open source. That means that someone could make some sort of wrapper to load 
extensions from any browser and even make special releases with your favorite set of 
addons fully integrated.

it may not be that way within the first quarter, but i'm sure someone will take this 
on between google and opensource community. once they have, i'm gonnna mess with the 
addon code til i can get my firefox extensions to install :)
Sep 18, 2008
#70 jonathan...@gmail.com
+1
Sep 24, 2008
#71 ander.pu...@gmail.com
+1

i sold my soul to google and i need gcal and gmail integration. also gdocs and notebook.
Sep 24, 2008
#72 sreisjr
+1

I'm a software developper and one of our products is a browser extension ( a BHO for 
IE and an AddOn for Firefox ) as soon as chrome add this feature we'll port it to 
chrome too. In My opinion this feature is a must!
Sep 24, 2008
#73 clayton....@gmail.com
I'm a software developer just like sreisjr. Actually, I use native languages (most of
time C\C++) and as soon as the chrome supports native addons I'll make a special
build of my applications for chrome.
Sep 26, 2008
#74 matt.daemon660
Indeed i agree Plug-ins are a must.

Also themes wont be too bad either.
Sep 29, 2008
#75 mal.chromium@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -area-unknown Area-Misc
Oct 3, 2008
#76 nicolas....@gmail.com
Star the issue instead of saying +1
Oct 3, 2008
#77 iam...@gmail.com
I second comment #76.

;)


Oct 9, 2008
#78 posapayy...@gmail.com
+1
Oct 10, 2008
#79 vandr...@gmail.com
1 more vote
Oct 10, 2008
#80 icz...@gmail.com
Google Toolbar most wanted!!
Oct 15, 2008
#81 mverno...@gmail.com
Just in case you would like Firefox plugins (addons) for Chrome, you might remember 
that these are not even compatible from one version of Firefox to the next.

It's rather unlikely they will ever be compatible with a whole other browser.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be some kind of add-on system in Google 
Chrome, of course.
Oct 18, 2008
#82 lordka...@gmail.com
>>81
Actually, they are compatible it's just set up in a way that the upgraded browser
chooses not to use them. You can change that if you know how and run FF1 extensions
on FF3.
Oct 18, 2008
#83 mverno...@gmail.com
It's not like the Firefox developers do that just to annoy you, of course. Sure, you can force installation by 
using the Nightly Tester Tool, but you will most likely run into trouble. See for instance this comment on the 
add-on page:

'It is very useful to make themes work that haven't been or won't b updated.... However I am gettin scroll bars 
missing or tabs not showing on these themes that are "forced". Is this just me or...'

Anyway, what I meant to say was that Firefox add-ons are programmed after a very complex API, which is 
also a moving target. To make running these add-ons in Chrome possible, would mean replicating most of 
Firefox itself, and then keep that up-to-date.
Oct 19, 2008
#84 KeHTaBp
+1


Oct 19, 2008
#85 KeHTaBp
This issue is the only one that prevent me from setting chrome as default browser
Oct 19, 2008
#86 davethew...@gmail.com
+1
Oct 20, 2008
#87 lealcy
But, please don't try to adapt the Firefox plugin system. This system haves a ton of 
touble.
Oct 20, 2008
#88 jedediah
Assuming the addon system will be based on JavaScript, I request that it be a "living 
system" e.g. code can be added, removed and edited without restarting anything. Incessant restarts is one of the major flaws with the Firefox addon system.

The other big problem Firefox has is updates breaking addons. Any addon that isn't 
constantly maintained quickly becomes unusable. Chrome should use a stable addon API 
with versioning. Addons specify which API version they are written for and Chrome 
supports all previous versions.
Oct 20, 2008
#89 lealcy
I igree with Jedediah.
Oct 21, 2008
#90 jstack...@gmail.com
It's going to take Google a while to get the addon system right guys -- be patient.  
I'm sure it will come eventually, but they need to figure out how to best display and  
load addons quickly.
Oct 21, 2008
#91 lealcy
It's not an easy task, I know. I wish they can surprise us with the very best 
implemented plugins system ever :P.

Best Considerations.
Oct 21, 2008
#92 j...@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Available
Labels: -Area-Misc Area-Extensions Mstone-X
Oct 21, 2008
#93 thydavid...@gmail.com
Yes this is definitely needed, it is the achillies heel. This should be google's  
number 1 priority.
Oct 25, 2008
#94 seanh.inbox
+1 .. should be #1 priority.  ty.
Oct 26, 2008
#95 tomma...@gmail.com
i agree a firefox compatible add-ons support would be great
so people can use http://www.cooliris.com/ in chrome
and greasemonkey, and such
Oct 28, 2008
#96 jegesm...@gmail.com
RoboForm needs to be supported
Oct 29, 2008
#97 hlan...@gmail.com
With the possibility to add extensions and plugins Chrome would be my browser of 
choice. 

Without the possibility to use extensions to reproduce the behaviour of extensions 
like Adblock, foxyproxy and greasemonkey... Firefox will remain my default browser...
Oct 29, 2008
#98 sekar...@gmail.com
add-on support is a must-have.. that'll make the otherwise great browser complete.
Oct 29, 2008
#99 sco...@gmail.com
Okay, we get the point, everyone wants this. Please stop posting if all you're saying 
is that you want it - start the issue instead.
Oct 29, 2008
#100 prog...@gmail.com
no, he means STAR the issue

it shows the developers how much the users are interested in it without spamming all 
the users that already stared it

to STAR an issue, make the gray STAR next to the issue's title become yellow by 
clicking on it...


thanks
Oct 31, 2008
#101 lealcy
This is the most starred issue. This must means a thing.
Oct 31, 2008
#102 iam...@gmail.com
It mean a thing alright.

Oct 31, 2008
#103 john...@gmail.com
What, if any, difference is there between an 'add-on', an 'extension', and a 'plug-in'?

I checked out "chromeplugins.org" but only found more 'addons are required' comments.
 And the article at informationweek.com didn't give anything away other than Ojan
Vafai acknowledging two broad types of add-ons (articleID=210602700). Is there
anyplace to get detail insight or discussion of how the google team are considering
to implement this feature - such that it doesn't mess with the core design goals
(fast, efficient, isolated, reliable, secure)?

I mean addon's have an astonishing spectrum of goals: are the boundaries yet declared
as to what they can and cannot do? Can an addon mess with the manager? or is it
contained to fooling within each tab? For example comment 68 proposes a bottom
'status bar' like ff. Would that be on one tab or all tabs? I get the impression that
"add-on"s need be broken down into at least two camps (tab vs manager).

So does the add-on run as it's own (singleton) process? or is it replicated for each
tab? What is its relationship with the "chrome process manager"? what is its
relationship to each tab process?  Is it compiled or interpreted?  

This kind of discussion would interest me and perhaps a few others.
Nov 4, 2008
#105 mikkel...@gmail.com
+1
Nov 5, 2008
#106 chris1...@gmail.com
Failure to address the issue of add-ons will seriously impact the popularity of 
Chrome - that would be a pity as it seems an excellent choice for a browser.
Nov 8, 2008
#107 gerardha...@gmail.com
I will not use Chrome as my default browser until it fully supports Roboform
Nov 8, 2008
#108 fgf...@gmail.com
Add me to the list of people who won't use Chrome until it can support roboform 
and/or lastpass.
Nov 8, 2008
#109 barneya...@gmail.com
I'm using Chrome, but not as default, until it supports RoboForm. Love Chrome's speed.
Nov 9, 2008
#110 Ric...@googlemail.com
YES, we need Firefox-like Addons!
pleeeaaassseeee
Nov 9, 2008
#111 prog...@gmail.com
will this spam ever end?

PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO THIS ISSUE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO CONTRIBUTE

341 (and counting) people get an email for every reply, there is no need to reply 
with "+1" "i won't use it until..." or "pleaseeeee" posts...

thanks
Nov 9, 2008
#112 fgf...@gmail.com
I didn't want to make a comment, but I couldn't find any other way to star the issue.
Dec 1, 2008
#114 a...@chromium.org
Hello all,

We've begun work on an extension system for Chromium. You can check out our initial (high-level) design 
doc, here:

http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions

We'll be updating this with more details over time as we begin to flesh out individual APIs. If you'd like 
to give feedback on the design, send mail to chromium-discuss (sign up at 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss). If you'd like to get involved and help, send mail to 
chromium-dev (http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev).

Thanks!
Feb 4, 2009
#115 anan...@chromium.org
 Issue 7381  has been merged into this issue.
Sep 26, 2009
#116 mhm@chromium.org
 Issue 23145  has been merged into this issue.
Nov 20, 2009
#117 phajdan.jr@chromium.org
 Issue 11458  has been merged into this issue.
Dec 9, 2009
#122 evan@chromium.org
Mass migrating Area-Extensions to Feature-Extensions.
(I also got Area-Extensions removed from the label drop-down so we hopefully 
won't see more bugs with that label.)
Labels: -area-extensions Feature-Extensions
Dec 9, 2009
#123 admwiggin
For anyone who still thinks this is unfinished, see 
https://chrome.google.com/extensions -- it's very much alive and working, as long as 
you've got a recent Chrome build.
Dec 9, 2009
#124 a...@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Fixed
Dec 9, 2009
#125 erik...@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Verified
Aug 12, 2010
#126 bugdroid1@gmail.com
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=55923 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r55923 | apatrick@chromium.org | 2010-08-12 13:18:51 -0700 (Thu, 12 Aug 2010) | 165 lines
Changed paths:
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/DEPS?r1=55923&r2=55922

Rolled ANGLE to r382.

Changes between r369 and r382:

Revision: 382
Author: apatrick@chromium.org
Date: 5:16:16 PM, Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Message:
Fixed Display::initialize so it does not crash for devices that do not support PS 2.0.

The crash occurs when createDevice attempts to dereference mD3d9, which is NULL.


Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1956042
----
Modified : /trunk/src/libEGL/Display.cpp

Revision: 381
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:33:53 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Fixed warnings about deprecated conversion from string constant to char*. Submitted by timeless.
BUG=18
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1936041
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/glslang.l
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/glslang.y

Revision: 380
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:32:56 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Some compilers do not support standard STL allocator interface. Also removed _Charalloc function only needed by VC++6.0, which we do not support. Submitted by Eagle.Lu.
BUG=19
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1913048
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/PoolAlloc.h

Revision: 379
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:31:36 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Fix warnings about unused variables. Submitted by timeless.
BUG=15
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1916046
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/OutputGLSL.cpp

Revision: 378
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:30:49 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Fix warnings about comparison/assignement between signed and unsigned types. Submitted by timeless.
BUG=13
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1895051
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/atom.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/symbols.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/tokens.c

Revision: 377
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:29:59 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
ret = yyparse(...) is dropped in PaParseStrings. Submitted by timeless.
BUG=16
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1868056
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/glslang.l

Revision: 376
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 3:28:19 PM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Fix warnings about initialization order in the class initialization list. Submitted by timeless.
BUG=14
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1850054
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/PoolAlloc.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/parseConst.cpp

Revision: 375
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 10:16:27 AM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Reject shaders that invoke functions hidden by variable or struct name.
BUG=22
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1855057
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/ParseHelper.cpp

Revision: 374
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 10:14:46 AM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
We were trying to change a const_iterator which was rightly caught by SunStudio compiler. Submitted by Eagle.Lu.
BUG=19
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1879049
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/OutputGLSL.cpp

Revision: 373
Author: alokp@chromium.org
Date: 10:14:09 AM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Replaced __inline with inline to make it compile with SunStudio compiler. Submitted by Eagle.Lu.
BUG=19
Review URL: http://codereview.appspot.com/1910047
----
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/BaseTypes.h

Revision: 372
Author: vangelis@google.com
Date: 9:51:37 AM, Monday, August 09, 2010
Message:
Adding separate license file for the preprocessor code and removing the ANGLE boilerplate license from those files.
----
Added : /trunk/LICENSE.preprocessor
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/atom.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/atom.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/compile.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/cpp.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/cpp.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/cppstruct.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/memory.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/memory.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/parser.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/preprocess.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/scanner.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/scanner.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/slglobals.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/symbols.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/symbols.h
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/tokens.c
Modified : /trunk/src/compiler/preprocessor/tokens.h

Revision: 371
Author: daniel@transgaming.com
Date: 9:50:02 PM, Saturday, August 07, 2010
Message:
Add Al and Vlad to contributors file
----
Modified : /trunk/CONTRIBUTORS

Revision: 370
Author: daniel@transgaming.com
Date: 9:49:56 PM, Saturday, August 07, 2010
Message:
Implement EXT_texture_format_BGRA8888 and EXT_read_format_bgra
Trac #13050, Issue=21
Original Author: Vladimir Vukicevic
Signed-off-by: Daniel Koch
----
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/Blit.cpp
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/Context.cpp
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/Texture.cpp
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/libGLESv2.cpp
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/utilities.cpp
Modified : /trunk/src/libGLESv2/utilities.h


TEST=try
BUG=none

Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/3136006
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 24, 2011
#127 executor...@gmail.com
Chrome is a best performance browser for today but the one has problem with HID.

In chrome, by defult, multitouch is at select mode. 
It urgently needs a scroll mode, 
becouse always it is needed to pin point scroll bar instead of just scrolling with finger on every part of page as in all other browsers.

Tested on Asus 101MT & PC+Wacom.

Hope to see that simple problem solved in next update.
Oct 12, 2012
#128 bugdro...@chromium.org
This issue has been closed for some time. No one will pay attention to new comments.
If you are seeing this bug or have new data, please click New Issue to start a new bug.
Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
Mar 10, 2013
#129 bugdro...@chromium.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Feature-Extensions Cr-Platform-Extensions
Sign in to add a comment

Powered by Google Project Hosting