Making Vivaldi modular?
aeiou last edited by
I love the old Opera, it has many features that I like, but I don't use all of them, and undoubtedly, having too many built-in features (like mail client, P2P client, RSS client, etc) just slow everything down. Having plugins/extensions is pretty much common a thing for browsers now. Is there a possibility of making the bigger features into something like official plugin-like modules instead? So that user can opt to whether they want it in their Viva or not. Viva is no where as big as Opera was, but it might be a good idea to consider this early, and start planning for it.
ahoj1234 last edited by
I understand this idea like when installing some SW for playing videos (for example). Where you can tick which codecs you want to install and which you don't.
Applied on browsers: you will chose which features you want to install and which not. Not done by extension (since it's non-native) but in some modular way.
It seems pretty like extensions to me ever since I would be really impressed to see this when you can select what to install and what not to but it also seems pretty time consuming for developers separate features and allow us or don't install them.
(though, mail is working in internal builds and it's hidden or removed in public builds. If removed it should not be a big problem to give us this "modular" option to install Vivaldi with or without mail)
xoex last edited by
I'll go for modular too.
I think it's better for browser to be feature rich.
But they always lack something, I always wanted some sort of plugins for browsers (before even userscripts.js)
When I saw extension for the first time I was excited, but…. they're somehow unnatural. Not look natural.
I hate them especially that icons and how they act.
I think of some sort of plugins, or extensions that become part of browser.
There's "modular" and then there's "modular."
As with classic Opera, "modules" should be fully integrated into the browser, and fully hidden/deactivated unless/until turned on in settings. In this way, they take up no visual space and no resources, unless/until activated in settings and put to use. In classic Opera it was possible to hide all traces of the very existence of a mail client and, outside of a vestigial folder or two, no impact was made on the system or the function of the browser unless you used it. When you DID use it, it was totally and completely, seamlessly, integrated. That's because it was written from the very beginning to be PART of the browser, not something added on. Same with RSS reader, chat client, etc. You could not only not install and/or use these things, but you could remove any trace of their existence from the interface. If you wanted them, you could drag a button to a bar, and you were off.
This is the way "modules" need to exist. Use them? Easy. Don't use them? You don't even have to know they are there, and no memory or CPU cycles will be wasted on them.
alexpoulsen last edited by
I fully agree
Some addons/extensions are widely used: adblocking, tab suspending, etc
These might make good built in features, eliminate the need for these extensions
µBlock, Http Switchboard, a user agent switcher, and the great suspender are 90% of my extension usage
if these were integrated, I, and likely many others, would have almost no reason for any other extensions
mossman last edited by
This idea that the mail client etc. "used resources" in Opera was repeated often, but was total bollocks - pardon my French.
IIRC it was Haarvard who once roundly disproved that whole story by pointing out that 1) those parts of the total package took up a matter of a couple of hundred KB, 2) if they weren't activated they used ZERO resources, 3) the cost to "modularise" them would add considerably to the memory usage and CPU time due to the extra interfacing required… and it would become more complicated to code and likely lead to more bugs.
In other words, if you program well then it is more efficient to include commonly used features than have them all load up as individual extensions.
Exactly. You want to use sockets in the browser to send and receive mail, and use the browser itself to display both emails and the email UI. That's efficiency.
mossman last edited by
those parts of the total package took up a matter of a couple of hundred KB
Let's not forget that Opera managed to pack all of its functions into just a handful of MB… in fact, for the early version numbers the whole thing fitted ON A FLOPPY!!! (might have been with the mail client before M2, I don't remember exactly)