The most recent version of JxBrowser (6.18) is currently shipping Chromium 60 which is 4 major versions behind the most recent version of Chromium. How long until a new version will be released? In Chromium 61 ES6 imports is enabled and that changes a lot in rendering pages without the need for pre-compiling.
JxBrowser team is currently working on this, but the update to the Chromium version 64 will not be released before February.
Related
So I've just got started with polymer and got this message:
[Deprecation] Styling master document from stylesheets defined in HTML Imports
is deprecated, and is planned to be removed in M65, around March 2018. Please
refer to ....... for possible migration paths.
After doing some reading it seems to be that
<link rel="import" href="/SOR/bower_components/paper-input/paper-input.html">
Was causing the issue and rel=import for html was being deprecated. Is this right? If so what is the fix, how should I be doing this?
Cheers
So, according to the new version of chrome (61.xx.x). Google has made a decision that Styling master document from stylesheets defined in HTML Imports
is not a good approach and so it will be unable to do in future chrome versions.
Because of this, we have to upgrade to version 2.x
Well, nothing much interesting except that Google has made a decision that HTML imports will be removed in future. This is much more frustrating. Everyone who is using Polymer 1.x or 2.x will have to update their projects to newer version of polymer (at least 3.x). Unfortunately version 3.x has no support in all major browsers (except Chrome, but not fully). So we can only hope that the remove of HTML imports will not be soon.
For me this is really piece of s**t. I have many projects written in Polymer and I am not able to upgrade them. (there is no time for this) even i had time, I don't have trust in Google Polymer... Their support is 0. They don't even answer to bugs. Old versions are already stopped from updating. No long-term support versions.
official discussion: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/VZraFwqnp9Y/discussion
The issue has actually been solved by the polymer team, as described on their blog
So versions 1.10.1 or newer for 1.x and 2.1.1 or newer for 2.x are ok, however the warning doesn't go away (see blog entry for more details).
I also tested a polymer 2.6 app on Chromium 65 and on chrome 67 beta and it works fine everywhere :)
If you are using Google Polymer it's worth remembering that webcomponents.js is actually a polyfill. We currently run Polymer version 0.5 and this can actually be tested by starting your current Chrome with those features disabled. On Mac you can do this quitting Chrome and then run from command line:
/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome --disable-blink-features=ShadowDOMV0,CustomElementsV0,HTMLImports
Polymer 0.5 applies the Polyfill when these features are disabled.
Here is the documentation on running Chrome in debug mode Chromium debug flags
Is there a list of supported/un-supported graphic cards for WebGL2?
I am encountering a problem in two computers, both running Win7 with Chrome 58 (tested on 56 too), with all the WebGL flags enabled, one computer has nvidia quadro 600 and the other ati radeon HD 2400, both with latest drivers and I get an error that the browser doesn't support WebGL2.
I used the khronos' conformance test at: https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/tests/webgl-conformance-tests.html?version=2.0.1
Anyone encountered a similar problem?
Thanks!
FIRST my Reputation is to low i cant post more then 2 links. Don't worry we find a way around Copy+Paste the text/that/might/look/like/a/link
Type
chrome://gpu/
into the adressbar and you see how good Chrome communicate with the Graphiccard and what task it can perform. - here are some switches to enable and tweak your default(if blacklisted) configuration:
peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/
Take into account
superuser.com/questions/836832/how-can-i-enable-webgl-in-my-browser
Also on Windows OpenGL/WebGL content has to transpile through so called ANGLE interface into DIRECTX. Probably the bug occurs on side of DirectX. Your GraphicCard was listed in ANGLE only for DirectX Version 10. and WebGL 1.0 You can bypass and start using native OpenGL by using the switch
--enable-unsafe-es3-apis
Try Chrome from a Dev channel/Canary.
the problem may fixed in an upcoming stable Version of Chrome
chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel
I understand what Canary is. But it's pretty useless if you don't know what beta features are available. So is there a place where this information can be found? I've been googling but can't find anything.
Chrome Canary isn't the Chrome Beta, it's built daily and is the bleeding edge of Chromium development. Writing digested changelogs isn't feasible for daily builds.
You can have a look at every change here:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/
click on the current tag, e.g. 62.0.3168.0 and then on log.
For Chrome Beta, the Chromium Blog is a good resource:
https://blog.chromium.org/
e.g. for Chrome 60 Beta:
https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/chrome-60-beta-paint-timing-api-css.html
Releases (Stable, Dev, Beta) in more detail:
https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/
Here's how I understand the google browser differences:
Chrome - Production release (the one we're currently using, stable version)
Canary - Test release before new production release (Version prior to Chrome release)
Chromium - Dev release and available in Linux (maintained by Ubuntu developers, no auto-update of version - user triggered)
Are there any other points that I missed? And in terms of development, is there any other consideration if I use Chromium and Canary rather than Chrome? Like caching, compatibility, cookie, performance and etc. (bugs?)
Your interpretation is correct
Canary is basically a (near) nightly release built from the current tip of tree of the Chrome repo. It's the bleeding edge of development and so you should expect crashes and bugs but it's the quickest way to test recent changes to chrome. (Aside from building ToT yourself)
Aside from Canary, there's also the Dev channel which is a slightly longer development release, usually about weekly, but still built from the bleeding edge tip-of-tree. Beta channel is a long running branch that's the upcoming release and is generally quite stable/bug free.
The order from "freshness" to "stable": Canary -> Dev -> Beta -> Stable
Chromium is the name of the open-source project from which Chrome is built. A Chromium build is basically equivalent to Chrome but doesn't include proprietary bits (Flash plugin, codecs, etc) or official Google branding (icons, etc).
Compatibility in terms of web-facing APIs between the different versions should be essentially the same except, of course, for intended upcoming changes. In general, changes that occur in Canary, Dev, and especially Beta, are intended to make it to Stable channel so it's a good idea to test your apps against Beta to make sure your app will continue to function as expected once the Beta is promoted to Stable. You can find upcoming changes to Web APIs at ChromeStatus
In Canary and Dev, you're more likely to run into unintentional bugs that creep in during development. If you'd like to help Chrome development you can file bugs for these at the Chromium bug tracker (use this for bugs you find in Stable/Beta channel too!)
In terms of performance, a hand-built Chromium will depend on who built it and with what flags. The performance between Canary/Dev/Beta/Stable should be comparable and indicative of the final stable release.
I can't seem to find a clear answer on this anywhere.
How far back is it backwards compatible? Do I have to be concerned about creating multiple versions of the extension?
Thanks
"manifest_version": 2 itself does not cause any incompatibility issues.
But you can easily make a mistake and create an extension which is backwards-incompatible, by using features/APIs which are introduced in Chrome 18 or later (manifest v2 came with Chrome 18).
I suggest to not worry about the old manifest version any more, because only Chrome 17- is affected. As of writing, the current stable version is 23. Hardly anyone is using Chrome 17 any more.
See also
How to upgrade extension to manifest v2 and remain backwards compatible? (Stack Overflow answer)
Tutorial: Migrate to Manifest V2 (Official documentation, apply the tips in the reverse order)
Manifest version 2 extensions have to use "background" instead of "background_page" (and the manifest cannot contain it or Chrome refuses to load the extension), but "background" is not supported in older versions of Chrome. This is the main problem.
The only work around I can think of is to publish multiple versions of your extensions and ask users to download and install the correct version.