(01-23-2019, 02:05 PM)CentBrowser Wrote: This is just a draft.
It may be changed by time.
The final version may be quite different.

webRequest API as it is today ? 

I really doubt that Chrome team will backtrack significantly.

I know that Brave seem to want to keep the "full webRequest API" if they need it but their adblocker is already integrated but nor as powerful like UBO or Nano Adblocker .

If you keep it compatible with with webRequest API that we have today you would make my day ;-) .

Regards  

(01-24-2019, 06:13 AM)mikhoul Wrote: If you keep it compatible with with webRequest API that we have today you would make my day ;-) .

(01-24-2019, 06:13 AM)mikhoul Wrote: It's an issue I follow closely and sadly it seem more and more clear that Chrome will neuter the API. 

Look at the official thread you can see that they just do service lips and that at the end they will change it almost exactly like in the draft.
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00/G-DiWfdrCwAJ
Official Issue: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338

What is you intention about it, will you keep the webRequest API as it is today ? 

I really doubt that Chrome team will backtrack significantly.

I know that Brave seem to want to keep the "full webRequest API" if they need it but their adblocker is already integrated but nor as powerful like UBO or Nano Adblocker .

If you keep it compatible with with webRequest API that we have today you would make my day ;-) .

Regards  

(01-24-2019, 04:15 PM)CentBrowser Wrote: The problem is that most extensions are targeted at Chrome but not other Chromium browsers.
So even if these browsers keep webRequest API, it may make no big difference for these extensions.
Once Chrome takes that step, these extensions may change their design to fit Chrome, it is quite unlikely they will stick to webRequest API supported by other Chromium browsers.

chromium fork targeted at power-users that would remain compatible with version 2 of the extension manifest while  while being also compatible with V3.

So you could even have a CentBrowser store to host specific extension that would take advantage of more powerful V2 API.  It's not only about WebRequest but also at many other changes like removing background page that would break ~50% of the extensions.

You say " these extensions may change their design to fit Chrome" and it's not really true since for many of those popular extensions it would be impossible for them to accomplish their purposes with the new weak API. 

For CentBrowser making a commitment to keep retro-compatibility with V2 Manifest while integrating V3 would make a big différentiation factor from other Chromium fork and would gain lot of traction among power-users around the world.

Once the retro-compatibility code integrated in the code it should not be to hard to maintain, at first it would take some work to integrate it but after it would be low maintenance for the future if the integration was done properly.

CentBrowser would have lot of visibility since power-users would recommend it to casual users as their daily browser.

Regards 

(01-28-2019, 08:05 PM)mikhoul Wrote: Sorry for the delay for my answer I did not receive the alert that you have answered I will look in my spam folder in the future.


I'm pretty sure many developers of major extension like UBO, Stylish Tampermonkey etc would be interested in a chromium fork targeted at power-users that would remain compatible with version 2 of the extension manifest while  while being also compatible with V3.

So you could even have a CentBrowser store to host specific extension that would take advantage of more powerful V2 API.  It's not only about WebRequest but also at many other changes like removing background page that would break ~50% of the extensions.

You say " these extensions may change their design to fit Chrome" and it's not really true since for many of those popular extensions it would be impossible for them to accomplish their purposes with the new weak API. 

For CentBrowser making a commitment to keep retro-compatibility with V2 Manifest while integrating V3 would make a big différentiation factor from other Chromium fork and would gain lot of traction among power-users around the world.

Once the retro-compatibility code integrated in the code it should not be to hard to maintain, at first it would take some work to integrate it but after it would be low maintenance for the future if the integration was done properly.

CentBrowser would have lot of visibility since power-users would recommend it to casual users as their daily browser.

Regards 

(01-30-2019, 04:18 PM)CentBrowser Wrote: OK, we will keep an eye on the progress.
We may keep V2 if it is not too difficult.

(02-01-2019, 05:21 AM)mikhoul Wrote: I really hope 

_________________________________________________________

Could you look I did not receive a notification about your reply and everything seem fine in my settings ?