Sync: Status update
-
@aronand yeah, Opera also needs some improvements so exact copy wouldn't be a perfect solution
but as long as basics aren't here there is nothing to sync since browser isn't (and can't) used at allsurely you don't have to implement exactly everything into the browser, but since chromium extension API is sub-par there is not much choice unless you intend to provide proper extensions API and hope that people will create extensions just for you (I'm absolutely not against that, but some things will benefit greatly from being implemented natively)
-
@burbuja Could you be more specific? Thank you very much.
-
This post is deleted! -
@zakius said:
since chromium extension API is sub-par
Well, it's the chromium extension API that vivaldi is built using. If you find it sub-par to begin with, then there's no hope at all for vivaldi. I'm curious to know what you find lacking about the chrome API?
-
On Manjaro with vivaldi-snapshot 1.15.1111.3-1 i get this Crash
How can i start vivaldi-snapshot without Sync?
Linu74
-
@lonm no way to run extensions in browser context, no way to use extensions to modify interface, no way to use Web Workers (partially worked around by Event Pages/Scripts, unfortunately you can't use Background Pages/Scripts if you use them), Content(basically User)Scripts can't be run on internal pages and some websites chosen by Google
Chropera's implementation is slightly extended by partial support for their sidebar, WebExtensions standard is still evolving and adding some of missing features, yet conceptually it's still completely broken since most of limitations are there by design too
-
@cheekybuddha: this was the same behaviour in Opera Presto.
Slightly annoying but since it's now a bug, maybe this will somehow be addressed. I suggest a feature would be to prompt the user if they want to discard the local settings - but only if there are settings already on the server!
In the meantime, I do as I did on Opera: first delete all local bookmarks and notes and only then enable sync.
-
@zakius Look at the opera add-ons sidebar category. After all these years only a few extension which use the API have been written. Don't think it makes much sense. And the modding of the interface you can do in Vivaldi directly, no need for extensions.
-
no way to run extensions in browser context
I'm not sure what you mean, the whole point of the extensions API is that it opens up the browser context?
no way to use extensions to modify interface
Extensions can add buttons, popups & badges, they can add context menu entries. In Vivaldi pages they offer can be added as web panels. In addition to extensions, Vivaldi can load in mods that customise the interface.
no way to use Web Workers
Fair point, I've never come across this issue but that seems annoying.
can't be run on internal pages
Enable this flag to do so:
vivaldi://flags/#extensions-on-chrome-urls
conceptually it's still completely broken since most of limitations are there by design
That's a contradiction.
To tease this out into practical things Vivaldi could do, could you name some specific extensions that just can't exist in the chrome extension ecosystem?
-
Another way works on my Side.
I rename 2 Folders in /home/user/.config/vivaldi-snapshot/Default "Sync Data" and "Sync Extensions Settings"Linu74
-
Thanks for your efforts.
Will we have the ability to save a complete profile backup "offline" that can be restored locally in addition to the online Sync function ? -
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
I'm not sure what you mean, the whole point of the extensions API is that it opens up the browser context?
background scripts have very limited capabilities and contentscripts are run in website context
it makes a difference for mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts for example, but I believe there are many other usecases@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
Fair point, I've never come across this issue but that seems annoying.
makes a difference for a RSS reader for example, but I expect people to create other extensions that would benefit from parallelization
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
Enable this flag to do so: vivaldi://flags/#extensions-on-chrome-urls
checked it many times, in chrome, chromium and chropera all it does is expecting extension to request additional permission in it's manifest, it doesn't automatically enable them, though it may be different for Vivaldi
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
Extensions can add buttons, popups & badges, they can add context menu entries. In Vivaldi pages they offer can be added as web panels. In addition to extensions, Vivaldi can load in mods that customise the interface.
surely Vivaldi can be modified in some ways, though currently there is no user friendly way of managing them and many of them requite fiddling with files that get replaced with updates (just like manual edits to XUL in Firefox based browsers, it was possible but not feasible)
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
That's a contradiction.
broken from usability point of view, perfectly fine from it's designers point of view, these two unfortunately can be true at the same time
what is impossible in chromium extension ecosystem?
Fire gestures with ability to execute event while scrolling over tab bar (since contentscripts are run inside websites you can execute gestures only in website area and have to wait a while before code can get injected, and of course this won't work on internal pages etc. unless extension author requires the extra permission and user not only enables it but also pretends to ignore that obnoxious warning)
Pretty much the same goes about all vim-like control extensionsPages and pop-ups generated by chromium extensions can't be consistent with browser itself nor with OS since webtech doesn't provide proper UI elements nor styles to apply (there is appearance property that doesn't work anyway)
@luetage said in Sync: Status update:
Look at the opera add-ons sidebar category. After all these years only a few extension which use the API have been written. Don't think it makes much sense. And the modding of the interface you can do in Vivaldi directly, no need for extensions.
that's why I think it would be nice to be able to create proper extensions but if basic features are not provided by Vivaldi's team (either as built-ins or extensions) these won't be provided at all
-
@zakius I understand the problem better now.
I think there are definitely workarounds - I am perfectly happy with my current RSS reader extension that builds its UI in HTML instead of natively. I can add it as a web panel, no need for a sidebar API.
And there are ways to communicate and pass messages between multiple components in an extension - I've been able to use a background script in an extension I'm building currently without any major issues. There are some odd quirks, but nothing that completely breaks what I'm trying to do.
For the most part, I would take the security advantages of keeping things separated the way that google devs have chosen to build things - they understand the underlying setup of the browser better than me. And for less experienced users, warnings and hiding some features is a good security feature. (I would quite like it if vivaldi grew to have a userbase that also included less experienced users, so blanket getting rid of these wouldn't be a good start on that front).
Though I do have one big gripe: Chromium bases its extensions API entirely on async callbacks, whereas firefox (implementing the same API) prefers Promises - These are far neater.
And yes, It would also be nice if there were a proper entry point for what are currently referred to as browser mods.
-
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
And there are ways to communicate and pass messages between multiple components in an extension - I've been able to use a background script in an extension I'm building currently without any major issues. There are some odd quirks, but nothing that completely breaks what I'm trying to do.
I'm not sure what are you referring to but I assume it is the part about Event and Background pages/scripts
If it's so then as far as docs tell you can't have BG script per se if you are using Event Scripts (that basically perform the same tasks as webworkers, are created on demand, execute their code and quit)@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
no need for a sidebar API.
it was just another example that extending chromium extension API was done before
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
For the most part, I would take the security advantages of keeping things separated the way that google devs have chosen to build things
IMO they should provide much more APIs but limit their availability in store distributed extensions to trusted authors only, if you sideload anything it's your own business, right? But even that feels like an overkill, we have permissions system for a reason, let's just use it (with a twist, in Android some permissions can't be given during installation due to their power and user has to add them manually later, and some can be only given via adb cause are not available in UI at all, doesn't it sound like a nice solution?)
MS did stuff like that with their UWP and pre-UWP APIs: Apps signed by Nokia and MS could do much more than others, including messing with registry directly, while everyone else was limited to safe features (at least as long as App was published via Store)
-
@zakius For message passing, it's done in an event driven manner, but you can also use sockets to talk between background pages, content scripts, and other parts.
I do agree with you that it's strange you can only have background or event pages, but I can't imagine if the top of my head a scenario where you would want both.
And yes, permissions really should be as granular as possible. But if more powerful apis were made I don't think they should ever be limited to trusted authors - that puts too much onus on Google to manage.
As far as new APIs go, I guess you need some imagination on that front. Not something I'm brilliant at.
-
@gwen-dragon said in Sync: Status update:
Worked for me.
-
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
I can't imagine if the top of my head a scenario where you would want both
from my understanding of chromium extensions you do need bg script to open new tab on toolbar button click, if you can use event script for that too then it may indeed be harder to imagine, but definitely not impossible
@lonm said in Sync: Status update:
But if more powerful apis were made I don't think they should ever be limited to trusted authors - that puts too much onus on Google to manage.
well, if one creating these APIs would be using them to provide extensions it would be easy, but since Google won't do that...
-
@gwen-dragon It's just the meme I have in my mind when somebody says "helped in my case" / "works for me"
Don't take it personally Lilo You explained it wery well.
Just replication of fixes sometimes is as hard as the errors.So everyone in IT is joking with "works on my machine".
I use to say this on my daily basis too -
@gwen-dragon I don't know if something is lost in translation but I don't see anything unfriendly, it simply means I can't replicate your issue on my machine, nothing less nothing more.
-
Crash on Linux Mint.
$ vivaldi
ATTENTION: default value of option force_s3tc_enable overridden by environment.
[20145:20145:0310/133753.292881:ERROR:bookmark_model_associator.cc(1005)] Bookmarks persistence error was encountered: Native version (117) does not match sync version (1)
[20145:20317:0310/133754.393597:ERROR:get_updates_processor.cc(244)] PostClientToServerMessage() failed during GetUpdates