People want API

People want API

And SDK too .

Because a lot to do. And there are a few of all:
1.Roboform support.
2. Better integration.
3. Extension&Plugins ( yes,again ). who don't want it(affraid security loss) - may DO NOT use it. It's simple.
4. And many more...

Thanks to all for support !!!

Originally posted by D555:

2. Better integration.

with what?

Originally posted by D555:

4. And many more...

like what?

Drag'n'Drop to/from other software for example

People who want an API are the ones who are in the dark of how customizable opera is.

I said once that I'd like to have an internal API for a few parts (allowing, for example, buttons to have access to contacts' information fields)

But not an external API

From Roboform Tech:

>>>We're sorry but we cannot support Opera as long as Opera does not have API's or support for Plugins in general.

Keep in mind, that wish is not a little, but a global. It will expands Opera to a higher level in inegration with other programs and grough up the functionality.

plugins are supported. flash and other stuff is supported through plugins.

companies pay to integrate Opera with their software, therefore I doubt a public API will ever exist in the near future

whit API there will be extensions for opera, like in firefox right?

than, YES +1

Abbreviation of application program interface, a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications. A good API makes it easier to develop a program by providing all the building blocks. A programmer puts the blocks together.
Most operating environments, such as MS-Windows, provide an API so that programmers can write applications consistent with the operating environment. Although APIs are designed for programmers, they are ultimately good for users because they guarantee that all programs using a common API will have similar interfaces. This makes it easier for users to learn new programs.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/API.html

I would love to see this, as a developer it would be nice to be able to plug Opera into a project, instead of using IE all the time. The only reason I use IE is because I don't have to write extra classes to get fully functionality of the document model, including JavaScript or any of the DOM method. Having the Opera option would give my users better support of those classes and methods! Opera is the better browser, but without being able to use it in real development it will never get the exposer it deserves.

I think people confuse the term API, for example (Bad Example)

The IE Application API

1 gives full access to the complete browser via scripting (using, COM/OLE, WIN32) (access via PHP, Perl, Java, .NET, Python, ASP,...)
this includes the ( window, document ) model and classess [read/write, limited] access

2. the SDK can be used out of the box in any development language (C#,C++,Delphi,VB,...)

this gives fully support for custom browser development (embeded too!), full [read/write] access

Sunny

Originally posted by shoust:

People who want an API are the ones who are in the dark of how customizable opera is.

Obviously its not as customizable as it could be since it doesnt have an API allowing third parties to utilize its functionality or incorporate their own into Opera (To make up for functionality that is either non-existent or subpar). I've wished for roboform support for a long while. People shouldnt have to give up tools they've grown acustom to because they switch browsers.

Is good to have some privacy, but this really helps in conditions when BigBrother CAN decript and read all the encripted mesagies? They have supercomputers, so they can decrypt anything.

What does that have to do with anything?

And plugins&extension API will alow to develope various plugins ang extensions. Even options like we long ask here to create .

for example like this:
http://api.farmanager.com/en/index.html

Originally posted by raducoc:

Is good to have some privacy, but this really helps in conditions when BigBrother CAN decript and read all the encripted mesagies? They have supercomputers, so they can decrypt anything.

Sory, I maked an mistake. This is the messege for PGP thread.

This means, vith this option (API), someoane can write an aplication to sincronyze the Operas Mail with the Palm one? If yes, I want this!

Originally posted by raducoc:

This means, vith this option (API), someoane can write an aplication to sincronyze the Operas Mail with the Palm one?

Yes, and even more .

Originally posted by bernardtse:

Opera can actually use most of netscape's plugin isn't it?

Just content plugins and not all of them .

For those who answered No 3 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API

to learn more about this great option.

This one wish may cover and contain a hundreds of little wishes, which posting here.
Please support me !

May be respected developers don't want give to users some freedom .....

Originally posted by D555:

May be respected developers don't want give to users some freedom .....

Now that's rather unfair don't you think?

http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/userjs/
http://my.opera.com/community/customize/widgets/

Just look at some of the possibilities:

http://my.opera.com/community/customize/

Of course I'd prefer APIs in Opera. Is there some kind of disadvantage? If there is, it's not a disadvantage that prevents Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Macromedia, or Adobe from providing APIs. Considering that lack of third-party support would be Opera's biggest weakness anyway, making it impossible in cases that require simple APIs is difficult to understand.

2haavard

Widgets... it's just a script support in Opera. Powerfull, but not open architecture of browser itself .
It can't solv proplem of communicate with other programs(best for example - "Incuiry" with IE and ScapBook for FF)
And plugins that would help in browsing.(For example it could be - Visual Bookmark plugin).

But that things for now may be asked a long-long time from developers . It's sad.

You do all realise that giving free access to a main networking app means opening up your system for the world? Of course both MSIE and Firefox try hard to make their apps as secure as possible. And the risk is mitigated somewhat in Firefox because it is not deeply integrated in the OS - it s just your browsing history and saved password and spoof protection that are at risk.

But the Greasemonkey affair should make it clear that such APIs are never without risk.

Exactly, that's why I'm against it. It's an open door that I find completely unecessary to open. Letting third-parties mess with Opera would also make it less coherent, what would probably slow down things and pretty much kill the great aspects of the browser (mainly, speed, lightness and security)

I'd rather sit and patiently wait the very nice developers to add features to the browser. They've been doing an explendid job so far, and I'd rather trust the Opera guys than some random programmer with his potentially evil, badly coded or exploitable extension.

Besides, the time that would be wasted coding the API would be better used adding more features and tweaking the current software.

I thought the Greasemonkey security flaws were in Greasemonkey, not in the Firefox API. But maybe I misunderstand.

You know it's ridiculous to not even give the users who posses the knowledge to do so the ability to go beyond the options that are currently available in Opera by not creating an API. I'm actually dealing with almost the exact opposite argument on the Firefox newsgroups in my thread about the creation of an implicit mode for the URL bar you can see the bug report here. and you can see the news group hereI also made a thread here asking for the same feature to be in Opera. Just because you wouldn't have the skills or time to do things with an API doesn't mean you should advocate depriving others of such a tool. It's annoying as hell to see people advocating depriving others of a feature or in this case a tool just because they would have no use for it; no developer should look at a feature request and say "No one will use this so I [we] won't add it." or say "No one wants this." as if they speak for the entire user base only a small fraction of which ever bother to post on forums or file feature requests or post in newsgroups in the first place.

What a developer(s) should as ask is "Has anything been allowed into the program that might make such a feature logical? Does the feature requested increase efficiency or otherwise make it easier to use the program?

Is there another simmillar feature in the program that could have prompted this feature to be requested if so what changes would need to be made to the existing feature to create the requested functionality possible?

If this feature does not exist in the program are there other programs that perform the same task or posses simillar logic that posses the requested feature? Will it be overly difficult to implement this feature?"

People still have to chase down an extension to change keybindings in Firefox for godsake yet there are people here that would advocate that users who may posses the needed skills to do so should be wholly unable to create features for Opera, it is utterly amazing!

While I do want an API I would ask that the API be FULLY and CLEARLY[/b] documented with usage examples for every function in the API before it is dumped on the net. Firefox has an API that I can't even begin to comprehend
1. Because I do not know xul or xml, or Javascript
2. I been able to find a truly clear listing of all of the functions.

I do have some programming experience and I probably could piece together some basic code to achieve what I want in Firefox[and Opera] however I can only do so if the API is clear and found easily without me needing to try and google it and hope I find it.

The Rmagick library for ruby is an excellent example of very good API documentation. I was able to create a very basic screen capture program in three days [I have only been trying to teach myself ruby for a few months.] and found it to be some of the clearest documentation I have ever read. I was pretty much able to find exactly what I needed from Rmagick in five minutes the rest of the time was spent putting together the code that would execute those functions. [And reading about Ruby syntax.]

Originally posted by Gary Sugar:

I thought the Greasemonkey security flaws were in Greasemonkey, not in the Firefox API. But maybe I misunderstand.

I fail to see the relevance here... The API throws the app wide open. I'm no XUL expert, but I haven't noticed that FF extension were limited in any serious way. So you can have Greasemonkey, mixing content from various sites (and after it was fixed, not making this functionality available anymore from any random site you visit...), and StumbleUpon and the Google Toolbar, that track your browsing history.

Sure, the FF developers have worked hard on methods to make it practically impossible to install an extension by accident. I don't expect to see anything but social engineering to succeed in installing 'bad' extensions. But this is still a significant weakness. The Opera security experts are even hesitant about the Userscript support in Opera 8. That's why userscripts are not allowed to run on secure pages (https), based on the idea that that is were the most sensitive data can be found.

Opera's desktop browser is at this moment not an application to freely build different applications on. But the browser core can be used as a component in a different application, as has been done in some Adobe/Macromedia products. But you'll have to contact our Business Develoment people for that. And you can get access to an SDK for building netbased apps on mobile phones and an SDK for building netbased apps for Linux based devices.

Hello.

I must agree with Rijk on this one. O must balance user (not just application) security with functionality. Sure they can make the application very secure but how many people blame themselves when Internet Explorer 'blows up' or 'downloads a virus' even though it was a user activated program? Would I love for third party apps to integrate with Opera? Yep. Would it open the large door to abuse and serious security risks? Quite possibily.

I do love UserJS, it's in use right now as I flit through the forums but I can easily see how it can be abused. I think Opera could significantly increase the security around UserJS (mainly in making it transparent when they are in use and where you got the UserJS from).

However, to put on my Devil's Advocate hat.

I think a far better argument is to say that Opera is stifiling the productivity of their browser and the creativity of outside Opera programmers by disallowing significantly helpful and customized add-ons.

I think of the BPS PowerTools for AOL which was an extremely helpful add-on app and pioneered many features that eventually were incorporated into AOL itself, though, in some cases 6 to 8 years after PowerTools did it. (Though I'm not sure how they incorporated themselves into the AOL windows environment being only an amatuer programmer.)

In my mind the question becomes, "Is it better for Opera to focus on building a secure and powerful API or to continue to focus on other areas of development for the browser?"

For now I think they are on the right track (based on what I've seen in O9) and I'm willing to tolerate a certain level of arrogance that they are going to incorporate the most demanded features for most users, even though, like AOL of the 1990s, they may leave out powerful improvements that other programmers could develop and integrate (RoboForm has always sounded interesting to me).

--

ALL THAT SAID... AOL has created a program that Opera may wish to study as an example of "Plugins by the masses."

http://developer.aim.com/pluginMain.jsp

Basic premise, you get a 'developer key' that you include in your app that allows it to operate with the client, the key can be revoked if you break the rules. A system like this would probably be labor intensive to develop but worthwhile in my mind.

Yum

Dear friends ,about what security do you talk ))!? Just don't use it (plugins, comunication possibilities, ...) and will get security .
IMHO the developers affraid that Opera will lost its face in THEIRS creation view. But extentions and goodies is very functional that we can be silent.

Originally posted by Rijk:

That's why userscripts are not allowed to run on secure pages (https), based on the idea that that is were the most sensitive data can be found.

Rijk, dont want to take this thread off topic but can you tell us if there are any plans for this to change?

Rijk, rofl, I just noticed your signature.

Originally posted by D555:

Dear friends ,about what security do you talk ))!? Just don't use it (plugins, comunication possibilities, ...) and will get security .
IMHO the developers affraid that Opera will lost its face in THEIRS creation view. But extentions and goodies is very functional that we can be silent.

D555, you fail to see my point I'm afraid. By allowing full access to Opera to third-party created extensions, you create the risk that users install such extensions by accident (being tricked). You are of course a good guy, but we've seen plenty of abuse of, for example, BHOs for Internet Explorer.

WillYum's example of AOL powertools is an interesting suggestion, it would go a long way to prevent abuse.

+1

Originally posted by Rijk:

By allowing full access to Opera to third-party created extensions, you create the risk that users install such extensions by accident (being tricked).

Does FF's popularity suffer because of malicious extentions?
Is IE the most insecure browser because of the APIs?
Only two of many questions to think about.
Very nice that Opera wants to protect the user from his own stupidity, even against his own will
I would like to believe that this is the only argument against APIs but I'm afraid that there are also reasons far behind this argument
Might sound frustrating but therefore I believe that under no circumstances Opera will ever offer APIs.

BTW
I like your signature, very suitable for this thread

Originally posted by Krake:

+1
Does FF's popularity suffer because of malicious extentions?

No, I don't think so. But note that Firefox is not yet the target of many bad guys. Trying to subvert users (probably less websavvy on average) of a more widely used and less secure browser is the logical choice for the bad guys.

Is IE the most insecure browser because of the APIs?

Yes, combined with the system integration of IE. Note that they are tightening things up again in IE7, just as they tightened up things in SP2.

Only two of many questions to think about.
Very nice that Opera wants to protect the user from his own stupidity, even against his own will
I would like to believe that this is the only argument against APIs but I'm afraid that there are also reasons far behind this argument

Like development targeting: we are more geared to building a browser for end-users, while MSIE is more geared towards offering an ubiquitous development platform.

Note that in the mobile space, things are working out differently. Hence things like the Opera Platform. And these things are getting mixed up, so we now have things like Opera Widgets for the desktop browser, and we work on support for SVG and Canvas, features for developers, not end-users. Who knows what the future will bring? I don't!

Might sound frustrating but therefore I believe that under no circumstances Opera will ever offer APIs.

BTW
I like your signature, very suitable for this thread

:-)

Opera has many APIs, Rijk mentioned some, there are others like the Netscape plug-in API, the JavaScript API (which is used in UserJS), the spellcheck API... Generally Opera has been very careful (some would say timid) in adding new APIs. There are always trade-offs with APIs, on the positive side you get extensibility, on the negative you can get costs like security risks, loss of flexibility, speed, or size, inconsistencies over products, binding architecture (changing APIs over time are generally not popular)...

Instinctively we err on the side of caution, we'd rather have one interface too few than one too many, and will probably continue to do so. But not all APIs are created equal, some have limited potential harm and risk but are very useful, others are quite the opposite. High gain, low risk interfaces are always attractive even to us API-adverse people...

Not that it really matters at all, but this is primarily a technical consideration, not a business consideration (though of course any code change will have business consequences).

Originally posted by jax:

Opera has many APIs, Rijk mentioned some, there are others like the Netscape plug-in API, the JavaScript API (which is used in UserJS), the spellcheck API... Generally Opera has been very careful (some would say timid) in adding new APIs. There are always trade-offs with APIs, on the positive side you get extensibility, on the negative you can get costs like security risks, loss of flexibility, speed, or size, inconsistencies over products, binding architecture (changing APIs over time are generally not popular)...

Instinctively we err on the side of caution, we'd rather have one interface too few than one too many, and will probably continue to do so. But not all APIs are created equal, some have limited potential harm and risk but are very useful, others are quite the opposite. High gain, low risk interfaces are always attractive even to us API-adverse people...

Not that it really matters at all, but this is primarily a technical consideration, not a business consideration (though of course any code change will have business consequences).

Cool, thank you for a reasonable reply.

Well I say definitely YES, I need API, if this will let me to
1) solve problems with page encodings,
2) display partially loaded pages without waiting for external .js and .css to be loaded, 3) set up some notifications when IRC message arrives

Surely many people can continue this list of personal most-wanted not-yet-implemented(fixed) features

I totally agree for the need of API and the support for Roboform, Opera is about the only browser that fails to support Roboform. If there was a security issue with it how come 99% use or allow it, wand is reasonable but cannot do what RF can i.e. operate from memory stick, save all information not only passwords and as a bonus be your bookmark manager. If on a memory stick can be used anywhere/any computer when finished no trace on machine ( I think that's secure enough)

In that case i think would be very progressive to develope (in main accent) an engine of Opera (with basic interface). Plus the enhanced API will give to users more flexibility and usability in browsing. May be we would have a new covers with fastest Opera engine.
IMHO .

Drop the BitTorrent discussion please.

[Off-topic comment removed by moderator. Please do not hijack threads with off-topic comments.]

Meh, look at how angry this discussion is, mainly over a theory. No one's opinion is going to change. No one is going to suddenly agree, Oh I get it now - those extension APIs in all those other browsers are too dangerous. Some people agree, but a huge majority disagrees and will always disagree.

On the other hand, I can accept the argument that Opera would rather spend its time developing and supporting new functionality comparable to the extensions themselves. If that works out and Opera does manage to provide the functionality that I want, great.

This means, vith this option (API), someoane can write an aplication to sincronyze the Operas Mail with the Palm one? If yes, I want this!

Opera stores its mail since Opera 9 in an one file per mail fashion. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to write a program that synchronises those mails with a Palm.
It is just a lot of work to write such a program.

To keep these threads well-ordered it is better not to add cross-talk, like this on BitTorrent which is unrelated to the topic. If anyone should have security concerns they should voice it in the security group, if anyone want to discuss BitTorrent they should do so in a separate thread in this group (since BT still is a beta feature).

The BitTorrent crosstalk moved to a <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=135166">separate thread</a>.

Originally posted by jax:

Instinctively we err on the side of caution, we'd rather have one interface too few than one too many, and will probably continue to do so. But not all APIs are created equal, some have limited potential harm and risk but are very useful, others are quite the opposite. High gain, low risk interfaces are always attractive even to us API-adverse people...

In my opinion, it's a fair decision. The company I work for makes a toolbar program for IE, and soon FF, and integrating into Opera would have been great, trying to find out more about this is what lead me to this thread.

I do feel it is something of a catch though, as technically your offering significantly greater protection to the users, but socially the protection Opera offers is lacking. SiteAdvisor, Netcraft, SiteHound (where I work), among others are able to offer users choices on entering sites, not just based on exploits or security vulnerabilities, but antisocial behaviours such as spamming, rogue products, fake investment schemes etc...which is where Opera cannot protect it's users, and doesn't provide the mechanism for third party companies to do so.

That being said, opening that door also opens the door for vendors to potentially make malicious programs/scripts, which is why I believe the decision fair. I hope this post comes across as I meant it, I simply wanted to offer another point of view, and not degrade the conversation


Cheers
Chris

Another sample of benefit of API:
Just select part of web page in Opera and copy-past into .doc document. Instead of IE&FF, from Opera formating text and pictures will dissapear . Because of an abcence of API.

No, that's not an API issue, D555.

May be is it unpossibility of Opera working with Windows API interface ?
And is unpossibility to Drag-n-Drop links into little window of download managers from that sphere ?

Originally posted by D555:

Because of an absence of API

Originally posted by haavard:

No, that's not an API issue, D555

I believe, he is mixing up, that there are no applications or plug-ins for OPERA which could do said saving and editing of web-pages like SnipIE (an IE plug-in) or the like, which are built on IE's API (comparable to FF extensions API). Netscape's API for plug-ins which OPERA has implemented is not sufficient for such tasks.

The Drag-and-Drop inability is another issue however, although implementable using Windows API functions it has nothing to do that OPERA is not build DIRECTLY using Windows API functions (indirectly it has to, like EACH and EVERY Windows program!)

BTW, how is the status of the joint plug-in interface efforts of some greater browser producers, OPERA is part of?