Project: chromium Issues People Development process History Sign in
New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.
Starred by 461 users

Comments by non-members will not trigger notification emails to users who starred this issue.
Status: Fixed
Owner:
Closed: Mar 2011
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 3
Type: Feature

Blocking:
issue 24577
issue 25769
issue 60099

Restricted
  • Only users with EditIssue permission may comment.



Sign in to add a comment
Chrome uses Windows' proxy settings
Reported by ian.d...@gmail.com, Sep 3 2008 Back to list
My Windows environment proxy settings are specific to work, and so I'd like 
to be able to switch my proxy settings to a different setting in Chrome.

Right now, Chrome opens the network settings control panel when I click on 
the Proxy Settings button in the Options menu. This is not optimal.
 
Comment 1 by bb00...@gmail.com, Sep 3 2008
I do not like this either. Give us a drop down with a few options such as:
'Windows Proxy Settings' -> grab settings the current way.
'Manual Proxy' -> Enter your own proxy.

Possibly other options for proxies as well.
Comment 2 by Deleted ...@, Sep 3 2008
I also dp not like this behaviour. Let users setup different proxy settings, and 
choose one. I use the same notebook at the office, at home, at the partner 
company... different proxy settings...
Mozilla provided a separate interface for entering your proxy settings. But just like 
safari chrome takes the proxy settings from windows. although it is not a very big 
issue but one like some independence in choosing multiple proxies to work with. for 
eg. i am using different proxies for home and work and i have to change proxies 
everytime if am using chrome or safari.
Comment 4 by goth...@gmail.com, Sep 8 2008
+1
494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug
Issue 1195 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug.

interesting comment :

This[our own proxy settings window] will be added when we implement our own HTTP 
stack.

issues 898, 1089 and 1130 are also duplicates of this bug.

If you want to use a different proxy server for Google Chrome, you can use this 
command line : 

chrome.exe --proxy-server=foo:8080

Comment 8 Deleted
I think this is needed....
+1
http://googlechromecommunity.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=46&p=173

http://groups.google.com/group/google-chrome-help-troubleshooting/browse_thread/thread/e1796733832d3284?hl=en

A few more votes for this change.
Comment 11 by Deleted ...@, Sep 26 2008
I vote too.  This functionality is very useful in a corporate setting when dealing
with many different environments.

Few other cools things would be:
1. Save a list of different proxies to allow switching easier.
2. Show some indication a proxy was used.
3. Allow mapping of particular host-names to proxies.
Comment 12 by ampio...@gmail.com, Sep 27 2008
+1
Comment 13 by Deleted ...@, Sep 27 2008
I'd like this too
Comment 14 by Deleted ...@, Sep 27 2008
Is there a way to setup Chrome not to use a proxy server but still keep my proxy 
settings foe IE/Windows?
Labels: -area-unknown Area-Misc
Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature
Comment 17 by Deleted ...@, Oct 30 2008
It would be good to also have a method to send dns to your socks proxy like you can
do in firefox  about:config | network.proxy.socks_remote_dns  set to true
Comment 18 Deleted
Comment 19 by jon@chromium.org, Nov 11 2008
Taking these to triage.
Comment 20 by jon@chromium.org, Nov 11 2008
Labels: -Area-Misc Area-BrowserBackend NewHTTP
Status: Available
NewHTTP should support configurable proxy settings that are independent of the 
default system settings.
This is needed, +1.
Comment 22 by Deleted ...@, Dec 2 2008
yes own proxy is needed 100%
Comment 23 by wtc@chromium.org, Dec 3 2008
Chromium's using the Windows proxy settings was a deliberate design decision.  We 
believe that network settings such as proxy and SSL settings should be global on a 
computer, so that the user can easily configure them for all applications.  The 
Windows versions of Opera and Safari also use the Windows proxy settings.

I understand the need to switch proxy settings when you use a laptop in different 
environments.  Does Windows not have an easy way to switch to a different "network 
profile"?
Hmm...Opera and Safari (windows versions) also use the windows proxy settings and 
look at their market share compared to Firefox which has its own proxy settings. This 
specific feature could decide for some users which browser to use.


I agree here - at the very least one should allow to override the proxy settings
using an advanced option. about:config maybe? But the option should be there for
power users.
Comment 26 Deleted
Comment 27 by Deleted ...@, Dec 8 2008
Yes this is also needed. Please allow a seperate proxy settings, and also allow socks
proxy too.
Issue 5530 has been merged into this issue.
I think they should move away from this, because i use many different proxy for 
different things.  and as msn wont be moving away from using ie proxy.
need a diff proxy for browser than msn. :P
Comment 30 by jon@chromium.org, Jan 9 2009
Status: WontFix
Chrome uses Windows' proxy settings.  We won't be changing that so this is Won't Fix.  
However, because we support things like PAC that you can configure in the Windows 
Proxy settings and we allow for a command line argument to set a specific proxy for 
Chrome you can likely accomplish most of the usage scenarios mentioned.

In cases where you need more flexibility we welcome patches to provide for more 
command line flags.
Comment 31 by jon@chromium.org, Jan 9 2009
Issue 2249 has been merged into this issue.
Comment 32 by klaba...@gmail.com, Jan 10 2009
Status: WontFix ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!!!! I'm going back to Firefox!
I'd have to agree - Maybe in a little more tactful way. Using windows proxy settings
limits the project significantly. There should be at the very least a radio option to
use windows settings or custom settings.

This would also indicate to me no possible way for google to build a Linux version.
And since I use Linux 100% of the time - Chrome is no longer a viable browser. 
Comment 34 Deleted
I can say more: better interface needed for faster proxy switching than now IE has,
why Chromium must be dependent from something?
Comment 36 by ampio...@gmail.com, Jan 10 2009
maybe, somebody will make extension
Comment 37 by jon@chromium.org, Jan 10 2009
Clearly you feel strongly about this.  Maybe my comment wasn't clear.  Let me try
again and answer some of the other issues as well.

1.  Does this mean Linux version is impossible?

  It just boggled my mind that an open-source project where you can
  see for yourself all of the engineers working on Linux, you can 
  see all the Linux related check-ins, and you can follow the build
  instructions to build it yourself that somehow people doubt that
  we are working on a Linux version.  We have spoken clearly about
  our approach at http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2008/09/platforms-and-priorities.html

  Deciding to use the OS native configuration for proxies has zero
  impact on our ability to produce Chrome for any number of operating
  systems.

2.  You just made FOO completely impossible!

  I suggest that if you look over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config
  and think carefully about how you want to approach your proxy settings
  you can probably accomplish much of what you want through the existing
  mechanism.  It is true that you will need to write a little Javascript
  to accomplish your goals.

3.  So now we can never have this super important feature?

  One of the great benefits of being an open source project is that the
  community can express its needs and goals by contributing its own code.
  If this area is very important to you and you have a great design then
  submit the patch.  You don't need to have an @google.com to become an
  @chromium.org engineer and we would love to work with you.

4.  Is contributing the code the only way I can get this feature?

  You don't have to be a c++ coder to help get something you want.  When
  the feature requires UI the team will need to work through lots of
  ideas on how to approach the problem.  There needs to be UI that makes
  sense on Windows, Mac and Linux and the solution may be a little
  different for each.  Drawing up and submitting mocks to the bug is
  a valuable contribution.  Having the mocks doesn't mean @google.com
  engineers will work on it but it may make it a lot easier for first
  time contributors of @chromium.org engineers to take it on.

5.  Seriously?  You are not going to provide FOO?!

  From my perspective PAC files provide you with enormous flexibility.
  If you are an advanced enough user to know to ask about lots of
  proxy flexibility then you are probably more than capable of writing
  a PAC file that does exactly what you want.

  If the API in PAC does not do enough then tell me what is missing.
Having separate proxy setting is definitely a plus. Below are some of the reasons - 

1 - Many times users would like to use different proxy settings or not use proxy at 
all for a specific browser. At this times having separate proxy setting in IE and  FF 
helped a lot. 

2- I do agree that this could be achieved by PAC, but how many ends users would have 
the knowledge/time to configure PAC or use command line options.  

I might be wrong but may be you should keep this bug open and have this feature 
available in some release X later down the road map. Having a separate proxy setting  
GUI would help many end users. 

I suppose this means Chrome will not be able to use a SOCKS5 proxy that requires
authentication. :(
Wow, the reasons given in comment 37 are short-sighted, immature and explain exactly nothing.

I consider myself a power user, I need to fast switch proxies in a browser several times a day, yet I have never used PAC files. I didn't even know 
what PAC files are up until now. Suggesting them along with the usage of command line switches is ridiculous and boggles the mind.

Even if I had the knowledge to code a proxy dialog box into Chromium (I guess this is an easy task for a good programmer), I wouldn't do it, because 
it obviously wouldn't make into the final product and the developers have a "we know better" attitude towards the feature. I've been a long time 
around open source products to know the real meaning of "Patches Welcome", so please cut the crap.

We understand it's your project and you can do as you please with it, but that won't stop anybody from criticizing your decisions. And despite 
popular belief, users are entitled to criticize Chromium, even it it's open source and free to download, as long as there are other browsers with the 
same two characteristics.

Furthermore, users can write to Google en masse and request this feature in Chrome. I doubt Google wouldn't listen to their users.

So I urge anyone reading this bug report and agreeing with me to:
- write to Google
- tell them you want a Chrome specific proxy settings dialog box
- send them a link to this bug report, so that they can see how Chromium developers are oblivious to what users want.

I'm guessing there are lots of people who agree with me, but are not aware of the issue. Even I hadn't been aware until 10 minutes ago, when I saw 
this bug report. I have always thought this feature is missing because developers are busy working on other stuff, I always assumed it's a "coming 
soon" feature, but now I clearly see the lack of interest.

This is where you can write Google about this issue:

http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/request.py?contact_type=feedback
Comment 41 by jon@chromium.org, Jan 12 2009
Actually the best way to vote for this feature is to star this issue.

There are several nice tutorials about how to write a PAC file.  You can find some 
here:
   http://jcurnow.home.comcast.net/~jcurnow/WritingEffectivePACFiles.html
   http://nscsysop.hypermart.net/proxypac.html

Wikipedia also provides a nice starting point with a good general introduction.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config

The Chromium team is very open to new engineers.  Pawal was our first about a month 
ago, he is a CS student in Poland who has contributed many excellent patches.  You 
can read about the process of becoming a committer at http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer

However, you don't need to be a committer to submit patches.  Anyone can submit a 
patch but you need a committer to review and commit it for you.  You should expect 
any patch to go through the same rigorous code reviews as any work.  Personally, I 
find the code reviews to be an excellent way to learn and improve.

Of course, you could write up a tool that helps people generate the PAC file they 
want.  This application would benefit all browsers.  You could write the application 
in any programming language you want (unlike Chromium code) and it could even be 
dynamic.  There are lots of ways to skin this cat.
As stated before, I'm not a programmer, I'm just a Chrome user. I don't want to deal 
with PAC files, as long as Firefox can manage proxies by itself. I want this feature 
in Chrome and I wrote to Google about that. IMO it's something absolutely necessary 
in a modern browser. I starred this issue in the bugtracker, but this won't help 
anyone, because it's obvious that the Chromium team does not wish to implement the 
feature.

The best course of action is to ask for this feature in Chrome. I don't really care 
if it makes it into Chromium or not, but I guess once it's in Chrome, Chromium will 
have it to. Or even better, given enough people ask for it, we will suddenly see it 
inside Chromium and from there in Chrome. Surprise-surprise!
Comment 43 by tom...@gmail.com, Jan 13 2009
I'm really amazed that such a *basic* feature is not going to be implemented (at 
least not by Chromium team). Is there any rational explanation for this decision or 
is it just because "because"?
Comment 44 by darin@chromium.org, Jan 13 2009
Do you guys really feel that command line switches are inadequate?  My thought is 
that any user capable of understanding what proxy settings mean will also be capable 
of understanding how to use command line switches.  This would seem to be even more 
true of users who wish to have separate proxy settings between IE and Chrome.

What would be the command-line switch to use a SOCKS5 proxy requiring authentication? :|

Or this there another issue open for this, or something? :|
Comment 46 by xno...@gmail.com, Jan 13 2009
PAC files are nice.. but what if you have to use a PAC file at work (and say that you 
need to use IE at work)? How would you configure chromium to use a different PAC? 
(but maybe there's another cmd switch I've missed, which could solve that problem)
CLI is good to have, but I don't think its a user friendly approach. 
Comment 48 Deleted
I never would have thought that another web browser would use the "Microsoft 
Internet Options" as their internet options. I had always figured that no other web 
browser (though I have not tried them all) would do that because they do not offer 
the flexibility that someone with enough knowhow to install their own non-IE browser 
would want or need.  I love the other options that Chrome has, but the lack of 
independent network settings knocks it out of the running for most professionals.  If 
I could code this option, I would submit a patch, but my programming skills are still 
in the "coming soon" status.
More to the point of my issue, it does not seem that you can use a SSH tunnel acting 
as a Socks 4/5 proxy using the "Microsoft Internet Options".  I can enter the 
settings there for the Socks proxy, but no information is actually being tunneled.  
Setting it up any other way results in errors, so it looks like it is very limited 
when it comes to its support of proxy settings.
Comment 51 by jon@chromium.org, Jan 14 2009
If you look at Issue 266 you will see that we are working on SOCKS support.
Right, 469, found that shortly after I commented here.  I starred that issue along
with this one.
Chrome should have independent Proxy Settings. 
I need independent Proxy Settings!
Comment 55 by drpi...@gmail.com, Jan 20 2009
If Chrome ceased to use the standard IE proxy settings (you know, the ones that get 
configured and managed properly by the system administrator) then it would be 
considerably less useful to me: it would mean that it did the _wrong thing_ by 
default.

A command-line override would be OK; ditching the use of the IE settings is not. 
Screw the whiners.

You can keep the default (IE Proxy Settings) as is, but at least just provide the
option to configure! 
@56: the proxy can be specified via command line arguments. However, this is user 
unfriendly and clumsy. What we need is a GUI, a la Firefox.

@55: the Chrome team should find a way to please systems administrators, common users 
and power users alike. Just look at the Firefox proxy dialog window. One can instruct 
the browser to use system wide or custom proxy settings. An elegant, simple, useful, 
yet powerful feature.
Comment 58 by Deleted ...@, Jan 26 2009
Combining --proxy-server with --incognito does not work, it will ignore the proxy 
settings. 
There should be an option to use Chrome's settings and IE settings (of course 
chrome's settings should be on by default)..hope this is re-opened.
Agree with comment 59. I hope to see a separate proxy setting in Chrome.
Comment 61 by Deleted ...@, Feb 3 2009
Both Firefox and Opera support multiple proxy configuration settings, easily 
accessible via the GUI, not by using command line switches.

The point is that to gain widespread usage a program needs to be flexible. The 
ability to change basic proxy settings is a must-have feature. For those people that 
just want to share the administrators settings for IE, then they should be able to do 
that. For those that don't, then the option to set custom proxy settings should be 
available. Switching between these configurations should be as easy as possible.

My scenario - I am a data / web server test engineer. I need to test multiple 
browsers, multiple websites, through multiple proxies in my private network. I also 
sit on a corporate LAN so I also need to be able to access my corporate intranet and 
other web services.

I use IE for the corporate and internet LAN access
I use Firefox for testing. The basic web proxy settings built into Firefox are pretty 
good, but I'm a power user and also use an extension called FoxyProxy that allows 
much more detailed control over multiple proxy configurations right from the Firefox 
dropdown menu.

And if I want I can default back to the corporate proxy settings at any moment to 
browse with Firefox in two menu click.

I wouldn't fancy having to relaunch the program using a different command line switch 
each time, and anyhow I doubt that would give me the control over my proxy settings 
that Firefox gives me as standard (let alone all the bells and whistles available in 
an add-on extension like FoxyProxy!)

In general, then, application developers need to try to really understand the user 
profiles of all the people that may be interested in using their product.

I would suggest that one of the reasons why Firefox is so popular is because it has 
standard features that appeal to a broad range of end users who have a wide range of 
varied and differing needs.

Of course, how Google Chrome / Chromium respond to the demands and feature 
requirements of different user groups is up to them, but it may decide whether they 
end up with a mass-market product or a interesting side note in the history of the 
internet.
Issue 7792 has been merged into this issue.
Comment 63 by towom...@gmail.com, Feb 19 2009
I understand the argument of
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=266#c23
(note that Safari does the same but Opera (9.6) does not!).

I also understand that you are reluctant to change this just because 
some people want "independence".

But there is one problem not yet mentioned which makes the "won't fix" 
assessment premature and plainly wrong:
As described in duplicate http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7792 ,
my company IT configures a proxy configuration which simply doesn't work with 
Chrome. I do not know the reasons, neither of their policy nor technically why 
it does not work. But the effect is that Chrome does not have Internet access.

Manual fixing does not help because the company configuration is restored now and then.
Obviously this means that the PAC file proposal doesn't help either.
Manual fixing might not even be possible for some users, see
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1089

So I hope the prospect of 
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1195#c1
will carry through.
The feature is definitely needed as I could hopefully substantiate!
Comment 64 by jon@chromium.org, Feb 19 2009
Issue 7792 has been merged into this issue.
Wow, just found out about chromium.  What a nice browser... but won't use it because 
of this issue.


+1
I agree with #63.  I love Chrome at home, but I can't use it at work without manual 
proxy settings (including authentication settings).

I have to default back to FireFox because:
a) It's not IE.
b) I can configure it how I need.
b) I can use it at home and work.

Perhaps consider a new Command line switch (because we're so fond of them) 
--Enable-Manual-Proxy-Settings-UI
or
--Enable-Advanced-Preferences = Thus allowing future/other "advanced" options to 
fall into this category.
Hope to see a separate proxy setting in Chrome/Chromium.
There should be an option to use Chrome's proxy settings or IE's own.
Do not like the current settings as sharing the same proxy settings as IE.
Comment 70 by jimmy...@gmail.com, Mar 10 2009
jon you've been fighting on this thread for a long time stating that users can 
archive flexible proxy setting by using a PAC file.

I agree with you partially but...

I've tried to use PAC a few month ago, but never got it working and I was thinking 
chrome do not support PAC, the very same PAC file works on IE/Firefox/Opera.

Today I found this thread and then I think I might be missing something, so I re-
checked everything I could imagine, then I finally figured it out:

1st, SOCKS directive is NOT working, so tor is not suitable since it only provides a 
socks proxy, fortunately I can use privoxy to set up a regular http proxy through it.

2nd, local PAC file address like "file://D:/tor.pac" does NOT work, 
"http://xxx/tor.pac" works, I uploaded it to a web server, it works, while 
IE/Firefox/Opera were happy with a local PAC file.

all above test was done on beta branch 1.0.154.48, my coworker's dev branch 2.0.169.0 
was not working with the same setting, sorry but I don't have enough time and 
patience to test that.
> 1st, SOCKS directive is NOT working, so tor is not suitable since it only
> provides a socks proxy, fortunately I can use privoxy to set up a regular 
> http proxy through it.

SOCKS support is issue
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=469

> 2nd, local PAC file address like "file://D:/tor.pac" does NOT work, 
> "http://xxx/tor.pac works, I uploaded it to a web server, it works, while 
> IE/Firefox/Opera were happy with a local PAC file.

file:// support is issue http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=74

This has been fixed on "trunk" builds of chromium, but is not yet pushed to users.
It can be tested using a build from http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/continuous/LATEST
and adding command line flag --v8-proxy-resolver
Comment 72 by Deleted ...@, Mar 27 2009
Wow...this thread is amazing.  It's pretty simple, most everyone has a proxy setting 
they have to use at work.  Most everyone does NOT have a proxy setting they use at 
home.  I use IE at work with the proxy setting and I use FireFox at home without a 
proxy setting.  If Chrome will use the IE proxy settings, then I will NOT use Chrome, 
that simple.  Sure I could turn on and off the windows proxy as I switch back and 
forth between home and work, but the fact is with FireFox I don't have to, so I 
won't.

If Google wants the business, they'll provide what the consumer wants, (which is 
pretty clearly stated in this thread), and yes I know this is open source, but lets 
get real.
work + proxy + IE != freedom
work + proxy + FF = freedom

work + proxy + CHROME = work + proxy + IE

This is a must feature to have in today's complex network configurations.
what's the command line to use a different pac file ?


Comment 75 by krtul...@gmail.com, Apr 25 2009
@justwantaguestid, see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config

and also Issue 74
> what's the command line to use a different pac file ?

@justwanteaguestid: there is no command line flag for specifying PAC file. Sounds like 
something worth adding though.
Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-3 Mstone-X
Status: Available
Clarification from an internal mailing thread: We're not as violently opposed to this 
feature as it appears, but we're not actively working on it, don't intend to actively 
work on it any time in the foreseeable future, and don't have UI designs for it.  So it 
is not strictly "WontFix" but it's low-priority.

Note: Posting "You must do this!!!" and similar on this bug will not in any way 
increase its priority.  Please save everyone the mailspam and don't.
May be this should have been part of Google Summer of Code 2009. 


Comment 79 by jon@chromium.org, May 6 2009
Adding Robert to cc.
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=15855 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r15855 | robertshield@google.com | 2009-05-12 08:07:50 -0700 (Tue, 12 May 2009) | 5 lines
Changed paths:
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context_unittest.cc
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/chrome.gyp?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/chrome.sln?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_switches.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/test/unit/unittests.vcproj?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/http/http_network_transaction_unittest.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/net.gyp?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config_service_fixed.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config_service_linux.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config_service_linux.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_config_unittest.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_script_fetcher_unittest.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_service.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/proxy/proxy_service.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/url_request/url_request_unittest.h?r1=15855&r2=15854
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/webkit/tools/test_shell/test_shell_request_context.cc?r1=15855&r2=15854

Making command-line specified proxy settings more flexible - allowing for setting of auto-detect, pac url, per-schema proxy settings, proxy bypass urls.

BUG=http://crbug.com/266

Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/115029
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gist of the above patch is that I've added the following command line flags:

--no-proxy-server
--proxy-server-auto-detect
--proxy-server-bypass-urls=<comma separated list of urls>
--proxy-server-pac-url=<url>

This doesn't add a GUI or persist the custom settings between runs (although you can 
create your own shortcut / .bat file to launch Chrome using the new flags).

Hopefully someone can work on this feature for 2.1..more features are needed to 
attract and keep new users and to also keep current users.
I'm the author of FoxyProxy, one of the top-25 most-popular Firefox Addons on
http://addons.mozilla.org. I've been asked by Mickey Kim and Conway Chen of Google
New Bussiness Development to port FoxyProxy to Chrome.

I'd love to do that. I'd be all over it. But it can't happen without not only this
bug being fixed, but also a more granular means to select proxies (e.g., by each URL
resource, or by tab, etc). I wrote a thorough explanation to Mickey Kim. Let me know
if it'd be helpful to post here.

Eric Jung
Note that the names of the switches given in comment #81 have changed:

--no-proxy-server
--proxy-auto-detect
--proxy-bypass-urls=<comma separated list of urls>
--proxy-pac-url=<url>
Comment 85 by vlad...@gmail.com, May 22 2009
Please add 
--no-proxy-user
--no-proxy-password
Comment 86 by Deleted ...@, May 26 2009
Thanks to comment #7, I am happily using Google Chrome while at work with no proxy 
settings. I just appended this to my shortcut: --proxy-server and it works like a 
charm. ;)
I'm confused by Comment 85.

If you're not using a proxy, why would you need to (not?) specify a user and password?
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=16883 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r16883 | wtc@chromium.org | 2009-05-26 12:07:34 -0700 (Tue, 26 May 2009) | 7 lines
Changed paths:
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context.cc?r1=16883&r2=16882
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context_unittest.cc?r1=16883&r2=16882
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc?r1=16883&r2=16882
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/common/chrome_switches.h?r1=16883&r2=16882

Rename the --proxy-bypass-urls command-line switch
--proxy-bypass-list.

R=robertshield,eroman
BUG=http://crbug.com/266
TEST=N/A
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/115725
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can the PAC url be a local file?
> Can the PAC url be a local file?

Yes.
(as long as you are on chrome 2+).
So when can we expect this feature to be live?.. 
Comment 92 by ahche...@gmail.com, Jul 20 2009
do we can use that feature in google chrome latest beta version?
Comment 93 by ahche...@gmail.com, Jul 20 2009
the code for shortcut is right or not?

"C:\Documents and Settings\huongcheongwong\Local Settings\Application 
Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --proxy-pac-url=<url>
@ahcheong: the feature is not present in the 2.0 beta release. It is available in the 
current 3.0 dev channel(3.0.194.2) and 2.0 dev channel (2.0.181.1) releases. 

The shortcut you pasted is correct for a build which has the feature.
Comment 95 by Deleted ...@, Jul 21 2009
I downloaded today, and it has a feature to Change the Network Settings, but it says 
Administrator has blocked the access to this feature,while i have logged IN as 
ADMINISTRATOR..its very strange...?
So Chrome should be Independent with IE...those who developed this settings have IE 
in-Mind...the software should be Flexible and should not depend on other Vendors
Comment 96 by Deleted ...@, Jul 22 2009
I really wonder that such genus software developers at Google doesn't understand this 
simple requirement. IE proxy settings is ugly and reaching to it is really hard in 
chrome. Please add a combo box to set predefined proxy settings in Chrome.
Comment 97 by Deleted ...@, Jul 27 2009
I'm trying to use the --proxy-server command-line option for Chrome, but it doesn't
seem to be working correctly for me.  I'm setting up my proxy using PuTTY ("plink.exe
me@myserver.com -D 9090").  I can then get the proxy working successfully by changing
the Windows Internet Options to set a system-wide proxy at 127.0.0.1:9090, but this
only works if the SOCKS proxy is the only one set; all others (HTTP/Secure/GTP) must
be left blank, or else I can't connect to anything.  I'd rather only use the proxy
for Chrome, so I've been experimenting with "chrome.exe
--proxy-server=127.0.0.1:9090", but that won't connect to anything either.  Is it
possible that the --proxy-server flag is setting the server for all protocols, and if
so, is there a separate flag to set just the SOCKS proxy?

(I'm running Chrome 3.0.193.2 from the Beta channel on Windows XP, fwiw)
Hi cstratton,
You need to specify the proxy server as a SOCKS proxy server, since otherwise chrome
assumes it to be a HTTP proxy server.

You can do this by changing the command line parameter to:
--proxy-server=socks://127.0.0.1:9090

Comment 99 by Deleted ...@, Aug 4 2009
I want it very badly!!!
I have a proposal to allow extensions to change the proxy settings:
http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/extensions/proxy-proposal

If approved, this will allow overriding the windows proxy settings in chromium (by using an extension).

To follow the discussion on this API, see the thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/browse_thread/thread/e6f606f11c40d36c
+1. I can think of at least two reasons why this is needed:
1. I want to use different proxy settings.
2. On my corp laptop, I can't change the Windows/IE proxy settings -- autoconfigure
proxy is on, and chrome blocks for a few seconds while doing this autoconfiguration.
This makes me feel like using FF instead.
Comment 102 by Deleted ...@, Sep 8 2009
I actually like the fact that Chrome uses the Windows proxy settings. However, it 
seems to have missed the "Bypass proxy server for local addresses" checkbox. If I 
manually add "127.0.0.1;localhost" to my list of bypass urls everything works as 
expected. Perhaps a small patch to add these to the bypass list when this checkbox is 
checked?

Without this fix Google Desktop appears to be broken in Chrome because requests to 
127.0.0.1 get redirected by my proxy server to my machine IP address which is then 
picked up by my local web server, which promptly crashes.

Our lan admins keep resetting my proxy settings so manually altering the bypass list 
is tedious. I will try to use --proxy-bypass-list in the interim (I'm assuming this 
adds to the IE list, rather than replaces it)
@chaospixel: The bypass local names issue was http://crbug.com/17903. The problem was that 127.0.0.1 was 
not being considered "local". This was fixed in r21876, and will be pushed to users soon.
I have a problem , the proxy issue has been resolved through command line but stil 
the chrome asks for proxy server password everytime I open any sit and for some site 
it keeps on asking the same even if i provide the required password. saving the 
password does not help either, we are using squid/2.5.STABLE14 and I am attaching 
the problem snapshot. Please find a way to save the proxy password permanently, as i 
have no problem in IE in web browsing through the same proxy configuration.
proxy error2.jpg
187 KB View Download
proxy error3.jpg
83.7 KB View Download
proxy error in chrome.jpg
95.0 KB View Download
Comment 105 by Deleted ...@, Sep 25 2009
Hi, all. Can I use chrome.proxy.useCustomProxySettings in my extension?
Currently, I can't see Object:proxy in Object:chrome.
I'd like to use Chrome from the office, but everything is locked: no access to the
Windows Proxy configuration tool, no access to command line... I'm stuck!
Any solution?
Comment 107 by jon@chromium.org, Oct 22 2009
Issue 13423 has been merged into this issue.
Comment 108 by Deleted ...@, Oct 23 2009
+1

The ability to use different proxy settings in different locations is a must. That Foxy 
Proxy allows this at the touch of a button is delightful. 

I can't come over to Chrome, as much as I want to, until this feature is applied...
Comment 109 by kan...@gmail.com, Oct 24 2009
Chromium is an open source project. I understand that the development team is not
keen on implementing this feature and as they seem to have this idea. It may be
because of the need to implement a protocol stack. I am no programmer, but at the
moment, I am thinking of becoming one to write the code to add this much needed
feature in Chrome.

Kannur K
Comment 110 by dhw@chromium.org, Oct 26 2009
Labels: -OS-All OS-Windows PlatformParity
Morphing to Windows bug as there are other bugs for Mac and Linux.
Mac bug is issue 24577.
Issue 21577 has been merged into this issue.
--proxy works great for me. Thanks to the dev team.
Please we need the ability to change the proxies as desired
Comment 115 by Deleted ...@, Nov 30 2009
When GP is used to lock proxy settings on IE (necessary for work) you are unable to
set different settings on Chrome.  I don't see why this is a Won't Fix issue as many
laptop users have to constantly switch proxies around.
Google Chrome is currently unusable without this feature for me.  
We definetely need the ability to have separate proxy from IE adjustable from GUI.
Comment 118 by Deleted ...@, Dec 11 2009
I would love to start using Chrome but not having seperate proxy setting s prevents
me from using it.  I am the IT manager at work and IE uses the proxy to the internet
and all web usage gets logged.  I use firefox to bypass the proxy, so my firefox does
not have a proxy configured to go to the internet.  I would need to configure Chrome
this way.
Comment 119 by Deleted ...@, Dec 11 2009
I absolutely loved and supported Chrome when it first came out.  Unfortunately the
unfortunate decision by the devs to not provide this VERY BASIC function is puzzling
to say the least.  Currently stopped using Chrome and back to FF 4.6b4.  
To add insult to injury Google leaks DNS packets outside of the proxy if DNS pre-
fetching is enabled.
Hi,

In my case, I have several proxies. One exiting to US ip's, another for European 
IP's, another over a local SSH tunnel (socks) and another over an openvpn (socks at 
remote) tunnel. 

I use FoxyProxy with Firefox, assign URL's to individual proxies which are all active 
at all times. So any website I choose opens with the proxy assigned to that URL, 
automatically.

This type of functionality shall definitely exist in Google Chrome or Chromium.
yes please add.
I suspect Google will never have a native, Firefox-like proxy set-up for political
reasons. Google wants the adoption of Chrome at corporations and governments, and
corporations and governments won't adopt Chrome unless they can lock security
permissions to proxy configurations on users' desktops. If Chrome will allow the
users to bypass corporate or governmental network controls, it won't be adopted. Just
another example of what happens when what once was an innovative, user-centric
company becomes a huge corporate monster that doesn't care for privacy or anonymity
of its users. "Do no Evil" my ass.
Labels: -Area-BrowserBackend Area-Internals
Labels Update:

Replace Area-BrowserBackend by Area-Internals
Comment 125 by Deleted ...@, Jan 5 2010
Lack of this proxy feature makes Chrome unusable for me.
Sorry dudes.
multiple configurable proxies supported...currently you can use 'proxy switchy' 
extension but even that doesn't support authenticated proxy. i wrote to its developer 
who set it was a chrome bug..look at any download manager they allow us to input and 
save username and password for authenticated proxies saving pangs of entering username 
and password each time we start the browser!!
We need native socks 5 support!
Using pac file is soooooooooooooooooo slow!

This renders chromium subpar. Honestly ridiculous.
Chrome is currently unusable without this feature for me. I used less than one day, 
after discovering this issue I went back to Firefox.

If Comment 123 is right for Google, it would be a mistake. They (corporations and 
governments) would never adopt Chrome, they actually have IE. 

chromium dev team, no is an "expert" and have time to deal with alternative 
solutions you suggest.

Maybe some day there would be a real alternative to IE and Firefox.
Comment 130 by igi...@gmail.com, Jan 15 2010
Is it just me or is the --proxy-server-pac being ignored in 4.0.295.0 dev ?
@igitur: The flag is --proxy-pac-url. (On older builds the flag was for a short time --
proxy-server-pac-url). See comment #84.
Comment 132 by Deleted ...@, Jan 31 2010
OK, uninstalling chrome now... I already have IE, why get another one like it?
My load testing tool in windows, changes proxy settings of the browser which is being 
used for web load testing. Now I cannot use IE, I need another browser with different 
proxy settings. Common setting just would not work in this case. I hope you guys 
consider this as genuine requirement now.
Comment 134 by Deleted ...@, Feb 5 2010
I use IE at work and would like to use Chrome for personal thing as I use a ssh to 
tunnel to my proxy server at home.  So there is a need to make the application proxy 
settings independent of the global proxy settings.  That's the reason why I used 
Firefox as its proxy settings are independent of IE's.

I tried C:\Program 
Files>C:\Users\jip\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe
 --proxy-server=localhost:74

That didn't work either
How to set a blank proxy in Chrome via the command line?
@breenjoe:  --no-proxy-server
Comment 137 by jond...@gmail.com, Feb 12 2010
Personally, this is not good enough for me.

The only thing keeping me from using Chrome full time is this issue.  Firefox + 
FoxyProxy is just way better.

I don't understand why you would not consider having the default being to use the IE 
settings, and then optionally use custom settings within Chrome.  

To appease enterprise people, you could simply check the Group Policy for "Disable 
the Connections page" which if turned on, for IE hides the option to change the 
network settings in IE.  If this is on in Chrome, you could just assume that the IE 
settings MUST be used and not allow custom settings in chrome.

Come on google, don't be evil!
Command line is definitely far from ready. One can't change proxy setting without
restarting the browser(Webapp). And i don't even know if the change will be applied
on the fly accordingly,if I change the PAC script when chrome is open. This limits
the browser flexibility.

1.Restarting the browser is not as simple as before, since part of the browser many
be running as Webapp. which the users ,for some reason, don't want to restart.

2.For Chinese users, many of them can't work without proxy, and free proxies could be
dead at any time.They need to try other proxy. Switching proxy on the fly is every
important. 

This feature requires an UI or at least a set of exposed API for plug-ins.
Comment 139 by Deleted ...@, Feb 16 2010
Thanks for letting me know--Chrome is uninstalled now and I can spare myself the
trouble of ever looking at it again.  This is a fail so typical of the boneheaded
engineers at Google.  Because you don't need it or envision it, nobody needs it and
they are clueless.  

Then you want me to click the star so that I get pain in the ass emails (letting me
know that you have no desire to fix it, no plans to fix it, but you'll keep letting
me know that nothing's changed).  Thanks but no thanks, as I've also said to
Gapminder, Google Docs, the latest lame attempt at a social networking site, etc.  
Have fun pissing the money away guys, sooner or later it'll catch up with you.
Comment 140 by Deleted ...@, Mar 3 2010
For everyone that keeps pointing out the --proxy-server=foo:port this does not work
on a socks proxy.  And yes I've tried using socks and socks5 versions of the command
to no avail.

This issue really strikes me as being backwards and for whatever reason not being
what Ive come to think as the "Google Way".  More like the Apple way (closed and
rigid).  Oh well FF works exactly as I want it to work and even though I want to
support Google the lack of progress (been a year now!) on this key feature request is
disappointing.
Comment 141 by Deleted ...@, Mar 19 2010
This is so retarded. My vote goes to people who support that separate Proxy settings 
should be launched specific to chrome and not applicable to the windows Connection 
settings.

How dumb is it for Google not listening to the community and preferring the Google way 
or Highway.
Literally the sixth comment in the thread; well within initial view of anyone with a 
decent resolution:

nsylvain@chromium.org, Sep 08, 2008
>This[our own proxy settings window] will be added when we implement our own HTTP 
stack.

Can people not READ?

dialog mock-up

A cross-platform dialog, implementing a simple GUI to support the underlying code 
currently only usable with command-line switches.

There is no reason to assume only Windows users want control over their proxy 
settings on a per application basis.


chrome-proxy-dialog.PNG
21.0 KB View Download
Comment 144 by ben@chromium.org, Mar 31 2010
Status: WontFix
Potentially extension fodder, but no plans for this within Chrome itself.
Comment 145 by jond...@gmail.com, Mar 31 2010
Is this functionality achievable through an extension?  It would basically require that 
the extension override all underlying network calls in chrome.  If this is achievable 
through the extension api, fine, if not, please don't call it extension fodder.

This is annoying that you guys won't add it to chrome itself.  It wouldn't be a huge 
challenge.
Personally, I think this is a very disappointing decision.

Might it be possible for you to provide a justification? E.g. you feel there is 
potential for user confusion, time or complexity to implement, impact on UI somehow?
Thanks :)
Having the granularity of configuration is pretty essential when you're an advanced 
user dealing with VPNs, SOCKS proxies, multiple proxies or you’re trying to manage 
devices via a Web interface not through a proxy...

Such a use case is very typical within Universities and larger businesses.

The 'Won’t Fix' suggests that advanced users would be best looking elsewhere. Is 
Chrome therefore not targeted at them?
Comment 148 by jon...@gmail.com, Mar 31 2010
Booooo. I have been waiting for this change before adopting chrome as my main browser 
in work (we have a number of web applications that require IE and specific proxy 
settings that I don't wait/can't change)  
Please there is no one member that can look into this any time in the future?? A lot of 
people need it.. more than 200 stars worth nothing? :(
Comment 150 by Deleted ...@, Mar 31 2010
Won't Fix? Time to switch browser...

The concept by darrin.gorski was brilliant, if only you developers cared about user 
feedback...
won't fix? bullshit
Google quit china last week, which means hundreds of millions of chrome potential/
users need proxy support. And now you say, we wont add any native GUI support. we
have no plan for plug-in proxy support.

It's disappointing indeed!
How many times this bug will moved to Won't fix state? Chrome developers need to 
understand that if the project is Open source they need to listen to end users 
feedback.. Google wants to add Plug-ins like Flash to Chrome, but doesn't want the 
basic features like proxy setting to be part of Chrome, really funny..  
I still think that's a weird stance (WontFix).  GoogleTalk supports custom proxy 
settings (and, as mentioned before, so do Opera, Firefox and a plethora of other apps).

The underlying network code to support custom (non-system) settings is there, it's just 
missing a UI.  Restarting every Chrome instance just to switch proxy settings is really 
pretty sad.  That's really the best we're going to get?
googletalk-proxy.png
16.5 KB View Download
opera-proxy.png
15.1 KB View Download
The Chrome extension API does not provide the ability to configure the internal proxy 
settings, and the way it is currently headed, it doesn't look like the API will expose 
these kind of low-level settings any time soon.

It is really strange that there is resistance to adding a UI to this when a command-
line option already exists - it's not like the underlying networking plumbing isn't in 
place. Perhaps a more detailed description of why this is not feasible or is 
undesirable would help?
Comment 156 by Deleted ...@, Apr 2 2010
While I agree that this feature 'should' be added in the gui, I also agree is not
that hard with the command-line option. Just create a shortcut to Chrome.exe and on
the target of the shortcut put the following

"C:\chrome-win32\chrome.exe" --proxy-server=foo:8080

just opening chrome, or using a different shortcut would use windows proxy settings,
but using this shortcut would use the specified proxy server. If you need more than
one proxy, create multiple shortcuts.


One issue I did run in to though is, as far as I know you can't switch your proxy
settings while chrome is open. You would have to close your browser and open the
shortcut made for the other proxy. I personally do not have to switch between proxies
that much, I usually have IE set to the corporate proxy and other browsers I have a
proxy that is private to our group and is open so we can do "research". So this work
around works for me, but I could see how it could be painful for others.
Developers:  Is this something you actively oppose (due to usability concerns or for 
technical reasons), or is it merely a resource allocation issue?  If someone were to 
write a UI, would you accept the contribution of code?
I installed Chrome just now to see what all the fuss was about. Within 5 minutes I'm uninstalling it because of this 
bug. This is nonsense. I too rely upon FoxyProxy under firefox to do useful things. The idea that there isn't 
interest in fixing this giant usability issue suggests that technical users like myself shouldn't pursue using 
Chrome.
Comment 159 Deleted
Interesting, the issue 24577 - the same  issue for Mac is still open. Why only
Windows is locked as Wont-fix ? This is disturbing. Is this some kind of discrimination ?
Issue 40938 has been merged into this issue.
Issue 40712 has been merged into this issue.
The stance is same like a multinational company, who does not recognises user 
feedback. It goes like this if we dont require then to hell with user requirements 
>> we wont fix the issue.........
This is a very basic requirement. Different browsers on a single machine can be used for various purposes, 
requiring different proxy settings. The current design policy is like enforcing all word processors on the same 
machine to use the same language database for the spell checker; notwithstanding that a user may have one for 
French and another for English. Rethink this issue please.

I just did a quick survey on custom proxy support for the Google software I have 
installed on my Windows box:

Google Product: Custom proxy support Yes/No

 Updater: Yes
 Talk:    Yes
 Picasa:  Weird (can set proxy username/password, but nowhere to set proxy addr)
 Chrome:  No

Comment 167 by jon...@gmail.com, Apr 19 2010
wontfix = wontuse
Without connectivity and privacy, speed and 'security' means nothing to me.
Comment 169 by Deleted ...@, Apr 30 2010
Having read the bulk of this post there is one question that remains unanswered - "WHY won't you fix it?" If 
the response "well you can do it ex-GUI" stood in the rest of the programming world I imagine the world 
would look a little different, don't you think?

FYI I haven't a clue what a PAC file is nor do I care - yet i'm here - why? Because this is a feature I use in other 
browsers therefore I want it. End of story. Your job is not tell me what i should and shouldn't know, by setting 
up forum you've expressed your job as developing a piece of software that people want, so get on with it.

It wouldn't be hard to imagine that the time wasted reading and replying to the posts here would have easily 
been sufficient for you to implement the request.

Won't Fix suggests this product is being made for someone other than the people on this forum, would you 
mind telling us who? 

PS what about this early more promising post?

Comment 20 by jon@chromium.org, Nov 11, 2008
NewHTTP should support configurable proxy settings that are independent of the 
default system settings.
Comment 170 by Deleted ...@, May 2 2010
The command line option works but you have to run a new instance of the browser. If
the browser is already running, launching another one with the option will silently
fail. So you're telling your browser "use this proxy" and it doesn't listen without
telling you "I can't, close the running instance first" ("and lose all your tabs or
have them reload at browser start... through the proxy, which you may not want").

It seems that the developpers are missing a point: many people want to to be able to
switch among many proxies in just one click. Being able to close the browser and
re-run it with the option, then close it again to revert back to normal, 50 times a
day, is absurd. And it seems that you can't even run 2 separate instances of the
browser (which firefox can): one that uses the proxy and one that doesn't.


Firefox has this feature, why not Chrome? Switching back to Firefox for now. I need 
separate proxy settings for each process with a simple one-click change. I require 
advanced proxy configuration at my job.
Comment 172 by evan@chromium.org, May 14 2010
Issue 43990 has been merged into this issue.
@Comment 171
maybe you haven't figured this out quite clear : 
the multi-proccess architecture minimized the changed that the browser restart
unexpectedly or say crash; but the current limited proxy support maximized the chance
that you are forced to restart it. ;-) whatever you are doing in the browser, when
you need to change proxy, you have no choice but to restart. It's of no difference to
an expected browser crash.
Use case: I run 2 or 3 browsers at work.  I want to use Chrome with a specific proxy 
for a specific purpose.  I want to be able to configure this through the GUI and not 
have to modify command line arguments or write PAC files (wtf are those)?  I want to 
type in some settings to a dialog box, click a button, and have it work.  The end.

Command-line switches: not user-friendly.
PAC files: not user-friendly.

This is 2010, not 1996. Not having independent proxy settings in the Options menu is 
a glaring oversight for any browser worth its salt.
Comment 175 by lenm...@gmail.com, May 14 2010
这就是Google对待用户的态度!失望啊……
I completely agree with Comment 174. I use multiple browsers at my workplace to 
different purposes. If Chrome changes the proxy settings, I lose our intranet tools. A 
fix is needed. Please change from "WontFix". Sticking with Firefox for now.
Comment 177 by jond...@gmail.com, May 14 2010
Again, want to compete with Firefox?  Give us these proxy settings.  I'm not sure why
the devs are so reluctant.  This is the last thing keeping me from switching from
Firefox!
I have to say, I was about to make the switch over to Chrome today in my work
environment but this issue is keeping me from actually doing so.  Chrome specific
proxy settings are extremely important to me and using a PAC file is not
user-friendly and is a hassle.

Please reconsider making this a priority.  I would really like to use Chrome in my
work environment but cannot due to this glaring issue.
People, please star this Issue or it wont get fixed.
how many stars do you need to change the "Wont-Fix" status!!! at least give us a 
number so we can start a campaign.

it is sad to note that an issue as basic as this is still unresolved even as chrome 
is entering its 5th iteration. it seems that chromium team are just sitting on this 
problem.

1. i need to use a different setting for windows update and internet browsing. 
changing the global proxy for internet browsing jeopardizes my windows update.
2. using pac is a no go. even if i am savvy enough to know about proxies, i don't 
want to code pac files. much like you don't want to fix this problem.
3. although extensions can basically add this functionality, it messes up with my 
other important settings (see reason 1).
4. using a command switch doesn't work for incognito where this feature is needed.
5. is this feature just that hard enough for you?

ps. i already starred this issue but i am writing this "spam" since there is no 
change in the status. it is funny, that developers consider comments in this thread 
as spam, when all they really are are user feedbacks on a trivial feature that is 
sorely needed in chrome. if you want to stop the spam it is easy. FIX THIS BUG!
Well since this is WontFix, I feel justified to post a link to an extension that does 
exactly what the people wanted, and what the developers have failed to do: 

Proxy Switchy!: 
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/caehdcpeofiiigpdhbabniblemipncjj
Proxy Switchy is not exactly what we want.  

Yes it switches proxies nicely, HOWEVER, it switches proxies for everything in
windows that uses the IE proxy settings, so my other apps all get switched to use the
proxy whenever I switch a proxy via this extension.

So, we STILL NEED proper proxy support.  There's no good reason not to add it.  The
best argument was that corporations expect it to behave just like IE and use the
policies, etc.  However, it could be programmed to check the policies and behave like
IE if that is the case.  If there are no group policies affecting the proxy settings
for the user, they should have the option to not use the IE proxy settings.  Simple,
solved, now please implement this already.

I'm still not using chrome only for this reason. 
Comment 183 by Deleted ...@, Jun 9 2010
Proxy Switchy actually breaks the Windows proxy settings. Or is it that it tells Chrome to set the proxy and Chrome breaks the Windows Proxy settings. If I use Chrome with Proxy Switchy set for a local proxy, IE can't access the internet, Windows update fails, Windows on-line help fails, etc, etc. This is really a half-assed approach. I thought I would like Chrome, but it's not really an independent browser yet. And you lost yet another Chrome user. I uninstalled with the intent of never going back until this thing is a fully fledged browser.

I submit to this request.

I am using linux with no system proxy settings. I am using compiz. 

Command line is NOT ok because i cannot add exceptions.

In my company internet goes through proxy, locals do NOT.

So come on guys...what are you waiting. People NEED this. 


Comment 185 by marf...@gmail.com, Jun 12 2010
This "Wontfix" is an outrage. This feature is pretty much crucial.
The command line param is not an option because it doesn't change proxy in runtime.
The best solution, i think, is to provide this feature as in http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16362 since it seems like this is technically possible.
Comment 186 by Deleted ...@, Jun 22 2010
I would use this feature.
Proxy Switchy does not work in Ubuntu 9.04.

It is simply unacceptable to have to restart my Chrome session each time I would like to switch proxies.
Comment 188 by Deleted ...@, Jul 1 2010
I use Privoxy ad blocking for Google-Chrome but I have other network applications that MUST NOT be proxied through Privoxy such as virus definition updates!!  This proxy issue was started in 2008.  Fix the damn thing!!  Please.
I installed chrome today... and will uninstall it today too... more than 1 year asking for custom proxy implementation, and the anwser is "won't fix"...
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=52088 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r52088 | pam@chromium.org | 2010-07-12 09:48:49 -0700 (Mon, 12 Jul 2010) | 8 lines
Changed paths:
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/dom_ui/new_tab_ui_uitest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/dom_ui/shown_sections_handler_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_pref_store.cc
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_pref_store.h
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_pref_store_unittest.cc
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/extensions/extensions_service_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/extensions/test_extension_prefs.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/managed_prefs_banner_base_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/metrics/metrics_service_uitest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/net/chrome_url_request_context_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_member_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_service.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_service.h?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_service_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_value_store.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_value_store.h?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/pref_value_store_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/tab_contents/web_contents_unittest.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/chrome_tests.gypi?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/test/reliability/page_load_test.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/test/testing_profile.h?r1=52088&r2=52087
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome_frame/test/reliability/page_load_test.cc?r1=52088&r2=52087

Add an ExtensionPrefStore, layered between the user prefs and the managed prefs, to manage preferences set by extensions.
Update various callers of the PrefValueStore constructor accordingly.

The initial user will be the proxy extension API.

BUG=266
TEST=covered by unit tests
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/2823037
------------------------------------------------------------------------

just a suggestion for the proxy API, a separate proxy setting is not the only thing needed, options like proxy-remote-dns, proxy-max-persistent-connections, proxy-http-version, proxy-pipelining, proxy-fail-timeout would also be necessary for many people.
@Comment 154
I was always wondering why port number must be separated from ip address ? wouldnt ip:port be easier for the user to input/copy&paste ?
Comment 193 by pam@chromium.org, Jul 13 2010
Feature work for adding a proxy extension API is now being tracked in issue 48930.

Suggestions for various other options are welcome.

Re-joining the scheme, host, and port into a single argument will probably happen once I get a bit more of the implementation done.
Comment 194 by Deleted ...@, Jul 14 2010
I must say, this is the one issue that keeps me using Firefox on Windows, since I use FoxyProxy to set different proxies just for Firefox based on URL patterns.
As a company we are restricting IE to internal use only through the use of a bogus proxy - so that users can have the full benefits of Sharepoint from the comfort of a browser they know and "trust".  I would like to continue using Chrome to access the greater Internet and am currently evaluating it with the option of an organisation-wide switch to Chrome from Firefox.  If we cannot use separate proxy settings from IE, we cannot use Chrome.  Please fix.
Is there at least an explanation WHY they WontFix? I love Chrome, but I'm about to have to switch back to Firefox because of this very issue.
This is the single reason why I stay with Firefox for now. My IE proxy setting is specific for my office VPN connection. My browser (chrome/firefox/et all) should be able to use custom setting.

Firefox allow us to us custom proxy, and I have plugin that let me switch my firefox proxy settings at a click, so convenience! This does not work on chrome since the proxy is shared with IE (which I don't want).

This is a MUSTFIX!
Comment 198 by Deleted ...@, Aug 1 2010
I am no longer using Chrome because of this issue.
Comment 199 by del...@gmail.com, Aug 9 2010
Foxyproxy is a must have for me. Please implement something identical in functionality in Chrome. I have to connect to different URLs through various proxies due to firewall restrictions and to support my customers by using their proxies.

This is a JOKE!  As much as I would like to use Chrome on my work laptop I will continue to use FF.  Using the Windows/IE proxy is ludicrous.  
Comment 201 by chep...@gmail.com, Aug 13 2010
This is the only thing holding me back to throw FF away. The lack of a FoxyProxy-like Addon or functionality in Chorme is simply a deal breaker. FoxyProxy lets you configure rules for each proxy you add, this makes the proxy selection dynamic (you can also switch proxies manually). In my work environment we use 5 separate proxies for different tasks, to that add that I work in a laptop that I also use at school and at my home... its simply unbearable.
it looks like it's being worked on by somebody at least:

http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.proxy.html

i'm not sure if that's by google or not, looks like it is though!
With regards to having a command line option to select a different proxy, that's fine if you're using a Windows shortcut that you can easily edit but not so when Chrome is your default browser and launched by some other application.  You then need to edit the relevant Windows registry keys.  It would be far simpler from a user perspective to have this as an easily editable setting within Chrome.  

If Chrome is going to allow a custom proxy setting (I'm not saying it necessarily should) then the command line option is inadequate.  

Yes this makes Chrome absolutely worthless for me also, back to Firefox.

I can't get the CLI option to work with my (ssh -D) local socks server either so even the cumbersome workaround doesn't work.

Very dissapointed by this, Google have lost me forever unless they revise their decision not to address this.
Comment 205 by Deleted ...@, Sep 1 2010
Won't fix? Is that meant to be a joke? 
I vote too.  This functionality is very useful in a corporate setting when dealing
with many different environments.
My vote to a separete proxy setting.
Can you just add this feature as Firefox did, default is to use system configuration, but the option to use an independient proxy configuration. This is my last milestone to fully migrate to Chrome.
Comment 208 by Deleted ...@, Sep 20 2010
我认为他有很大的"BUG"
This bug is preventing adoption of Chrome in a professional setting for my company.  We use FoxyProxy to use multiple proxies for various wildcard hostnames, thus enabling us to manage multiple firewalled networks securely.
Comment 210 Deleted
Comment 211 by mcb...@gmail.com, Sep 24 2010
This is bullshit.  This makes it impossible to use IE and Chrome on different proxy settings.  WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING GOOGLE!?!?  Back to Firefox...
Comment 212 by kenorb@gmail.com, Oct 13 2010
@mcbane: Try Opera, has a different proxy settings.

Comment 213 by kenorb@gmail.com, Oct 13 2010
Related:
Issue 59046:	Proxy settings - your system is not supported

Comment 214 Deleted
So I was trying out chrome for approx. 15 minutes now, looking for the network settings and getting known, that chrome uses windows proxy settings and no else.
Sorry, but bullshit. My company client here resets at every reboot proxy settings to a .pac file designed for outdated company IE6. But I want just the proxy address and port to use (as set in FF, for example).
So "WontFix" leads to only one solution: Throw away this crappy garbage and return to FF. Now testing the FF4 beta.
Its amazing how rude and arrogant most of you are. No wonder its a no fix.
Comment 217 by Deleted ...@, Oct 21 2010
I too would like to have independent proxy settings for Chrome as provided in Firefox.

Company IE has a PAC file and resets the system to that file on login, most users can't even change this setting and that's fine, they don't need to.

I have my own PAC for Firefox so I can test other proxies or no proxy at all.  I have control of it.

It's even better on laptop since at home it can't find the PAC so doesn't set any proxy but on the corporate network it does find the file so sets up the proxies.
Please consider reopening this issue.  Based on the number of stars, it would be near the top of the open issue list.
Comment 219 by r.ch...@gmail.com, Oct 22 2010
I have to agree with the complaints. I have been using Chrome for 1 month now and I love the implementation of almost everything in it. It's lighter than FF and much easier to configure the tabs, windows, and the extensions just rock. Being a software developer I love what you did with extensions an so.

But sharing the same proxy settings as IE is a deal breaker. I can't run IE and Chrome on my corporate computer without struggling everytime with the settings. All of my colleagues think the same. We keep IE for corporate stuff and its crappy proxy, and we wish we could use Chrome without it, but we simply can't.

I see this issue has almost 2 years going. I respectfully ask you to add a Chrome specific proxy setting.

Tomorrow I will be taking all my bookmarks and move them to FF. It's not that I'm mad, that's not the point. It is just not practical for me to sue Chrome anymore.

It's a shame, I love the browser, but I will not indulge this nonsense with PACS or such. Too messy.

I'll consider using Chrome again in the future but only if this proxy industry-common feature is available.

Google, you're loosing developers in your audience.
This is absolutely brain-dead. The behaviour is so odd that it defies logic. Why should I have to be presented with, and change, Proxy settings which are ostensibly for Internet Explorer when all I want to do is change Chrome's proxy settings? Moreover, the look and feel is all wrong. It looks as if it was tacked on as an afterthought.
Comment 221 by acri...@gmail.com, Oct 22 2010
Chrome has the code to support chrome-specific proxy settings, and the feature is available in linux. The request is not extension fodder as the functionality is already there, just not in the windows build.
If you developers are not actively opposed to this feature (which many people feel strongly about), I suggest it be re-opened and (at worst from an end-user point of view) assigned a low priority.
All in all, this issue was closed without proper investigation and forethought, and the only way to rectify that is by re-opening the issue and giving it the due attention that is being requested.
Comment 222 by r.ch...@gmail.com, Oct 23 2010
I fear this will not happen. It's been 2 years, read this Issue from the beginning and you'll see.

Is this a big issue? Well it is an identity threat. When people start associating a product with odd behavior, the product identity suffers, and many awesome products have gone down the toiled because of this.

This situation is just making Firefox's efforts more easy. Have you looked at FF 4 Beta? Out of frustration form this Chrome's issue I just did. Get my point?

I had developed several small applications over the years, and all I can say is that when I love my product, I really listen to what the audience who will use it have to say. Otherwise, my products would have been nice academical endeavors without any real world significance.
Comment 223 Deleted
I also want know why?
it's easy to do
Comment 225 by battre@google.com, Nov 12 2010
There is an experimental Proxy API http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.proxy.html

I *think* the values submitted to the useCustomProxySettings function are currently not used anywhere (need to check) but I am working on this.

Does anybody feel like implementing a simple extension with a configuration page as the dialog presented in comment #143 (lets start simple) that does the following:
- Provide the input fields
- Assemble a useCustomProxySettings call submit it
If you want to go fancy, you could have some mechanism that stores different presets in the extension's local storage.

I will focus on the backend stuff and verify correctness by unit tests. If somebody wants to work on a GUI that would be nice. Just be aware that the Proxy API is subject to change.
Please remember that many of us are using (or attempting to use) Chrome on enterprise PCs without admin rights, where corporate intranet pages are designed specifically for IE, and IT-configured Windows proxy settings use an IE-specific configuration script.  Without built-in/native support in Chrome for an alternate proxy (PAC), Chrome cannot become our preferred and default browser for the internet, because an extension such as Proxy Switchy means we cannot multitask with IE on the corporate intranet at the same time.  Imagine the power of a Fortune 50 company, with over 200,000 employees, with the ability to create a groundswell of support for Chrome and Google.  But Chrome needs its own proxy settings first.  Otherwise, that groundswell will continue to go to Firefox.
Won't fix? Fine by me. Won't use. 

I'm sure you don't care, but then neither do I. By far the worst Browser out there anyway.
Comment 228 by Deleted ...@, Dec 9 2010
simple if this is not supported I am not using was making the move to chrome but will not proceed because of this issue. Back to firefox.
Comment 229 by Deleted ...@, Dec 13 2010
Hi,
We are developing our own proxy tool for Chrome, similar to proxy tool for Firefox. We are not using Google's API - as we are developing our own custom libraries to deal with proxy services.

Please see http://proxylist.co to view Proxy Tool for Firefox for details, which we expect to have the working proxy tool extension for Chrome by the end of Dec 2010.
this is an absolute must have feature for me to switch from firefox

please add this (already developed and brain dead simple) feature

Please add this feature. 
Comment 232 by ben@chromium.org, Jan 7 2011
We (and by "we" I mean "someone interested in building an extension for this") should work with the extensions team to design an API to allow proxy settings to be overridden. There are numerous extensiony uses for this. I am not against the feature - just not mainstream enough to be a focus for Core Chrome at this time. Please consider this an encouragement and not a rejection :-)
@ben.at.chromium.org how do we get in contact with the right people?  I'd be willing to take a shot at this...
Comment 234 by upp...@gmail.com, Jan 7 2011
A command line option for a socks proxy:
--proxy-server="socks5://localhost:xxxxx"

This has worked for me with a portable apps version of Chrome 8.0.552.224
Unfortunately I cannot remember where I found this online, so I'm unable to give proper credit.
@ben See Proxy Switchy! it has thousands of users. Except that in Linux, it would modify GNOME configuration, which is precisely why you would want such an extension; so that you don't need to change the local configuration.
Hi, I'm the guy from AutoProxy which is one of the must have extension for users from mainland China.

I'm tired of answering why not porting AutoProxy to Google Chrome. ...It's just simply impossible.

I do excited at first about chrome.experimental.proxy API, and indeed tried to make a prototype extension. However, unfortunately I found this is an impossible task:
 * Chrome lacks of something similiay to nsIProtocolProxyService.registerFilter available in gecko;
 * In the meanwhile, the chrome.experimental.webRequest.onBeforeRequest event is asynchronous which means Chrome doesn't wait a millisecond for extension to change proxy settings according to specified URL.

IMHO, this is the most important issue for us to made a practical proxy extension for Google Chrome. Please don't misunderstand, this issue isn't only blocking AutoProxy, the same to FoxyProxy.

I'm still looking forward to port AutoProxy to Chrome, and I don't mind which one approach as pointed above is implemented, but we do need some help from core API. Without that, you keep blocking the top 2 (FoxyProxy, AutoProxy) proxy management add-on of Firefox and their users away from Google Chrome.

Thanks!
@jondick: I am one of "the right people". My current goal is to implement a useful Proxy API. 

The current state of trunk is that an extension can define proxy settings that take precedence over the windows (or whatever system) proxy settings. As uppsju mentions, you can also specify proxy servers on the command line (see the man page on Linux, Peter Beverloo has an even more comprehensive list: http://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/). But the extension API with an extension will be more userfriendly to the majority of users.

I am currently working on separate proxy settings for incognito windows. Then you can have two different proxy settings in Chrome. The goal is of course to become even more flexible.

@lovelywcm: Thanks for the technical input. Would you consider it feasible if an extension provides a custom PAC script? This might be a faster approach for the proxy resolution: Extensions are executed in a single JavaScript VM whereas we offer several PAC threads.
My question is: why can't Chrome have the following proxy settings?
1. No settings
2. System settings
3. Custom settings

Firefox has the above approach to configuring proxies and in my opinion that is the best. (see attachment)

In Chrome, when a plug-in is used to manually configure proxy; they change system settings and make Chrome use the modified system settings. This is the wrong approach as far as the user experience is concerned.
firefox-proxy-by-nadee.png
6.9 KB View Download
Comment 239 by battre@google.com, Jan 10 2011
In Chrome we have exactly the same (no settings, system settings, custom settings). BUT: No settings and custom settings are only exposed via the command line and the proxy API.

In other words: the default is "use the system settings". If you are not happy with using the system settings, you need to use an extension. I have a very crappy extension that proves that the mechanism works. However, it is so crappy that I asked whether anybody would be willing to implement a nice one.

There is one caveat: The Proxy API is currently experimental. I.e. Chrome needs to be started with --enable-experimental-extension-apis.
True, pac works. For example:

{{{
chrome.experimental.proxy.useCustomProxySettings({
  pacScript: {
    url: "http://autoproxy2pac.appspot.com/pac/ssh-d"
  }
});
}}}

But wait..., all browsers support pac, then why do we need a proxy extension, what's the benefit? According to my experience, dynamically change pac file from one to another isn't so useful.


The reason why pac is not so welcomed:
 * pac isn't conveniently programable compare to well designed API;
 * data in pac isn't persistent, it will reload the file and reinitialize the whole logic every time (am I right?).

Attachment is a pratical pac file. There are 2700+ regexp tests every time (worst case), it is deadly waste. In gecko, we initialize the main logic only once, and later use a super fast algorithm for matching.
autoproxy.pac
187 KB View Download
This is my current thinking (and I might be wrong):

I see three different ways of implementing this:

1. Use a JavaScript hook that intercepts each HTTP request.
2. Use a JavaScript to generate a PAC file.
3. Implement a more complex Proxy API.

ad 1: I believe that currently each extension has one (and only) JavaScript VM. I don't know whether this will change in the future. This means that if we use JavaScript hooks, every HTTP request is channeled through a single thread, which makes concurrent HTTP lookups very slow.

ad 2: Instead of using a JavaScript hook, a proxy extension might offer a nice GUI that generates a PAC script that is then presented to the proxy implementation in the network stack. The PAC implementation has several VM threads, each with one copy of the PAC script and therefore allows concurrency. The performance of this approach is of course affected by the implementation of the PAC script. (Long sequence of RegEx vs. Tries for pre-filtering or something like that)

Therefore, my idea is: The proxy extension should assemble a string that is passed as a PAC script into the proxy implementation. This is performed once on startup and every time the proxy settings are changed.

ad 3: Implementing a dedicated filtering mechanism is also an option. It would probably be more complex and less flexible. But it might be faster. I will have a look at the Gecko API and discuss it with the authors of our network stack.

Thanks for your input.
Comment 242 by jond...@gmail.com, Jan 10 2011
Sounds like #2 is the way to go.  I guess, why reinvent the wheel, this is in a sense, what PAC scripts were designed for.

I could see making an extension that mimics something like foxyproxy, where you can define multiple proxies, rules for each (for white or blacklisting patterns), and having it generate the PAC script each time the configuration changes (storing the config in a flat file or something).  

The only slightly annoying part here is that any time the user changes any settings on the extension, a whole new PAC script must be generated and loaded.  For example, if I have 3 proxies, each with rules, in foxyproxy I can either use the rules, or I can select a specific proxy to use for all requests, disregarding the rules.  Switching between these modes would have to require the regeneration of the PAC script.  I'm not sure how big of a deal this is, but it obviously isn't terribly efficient.

A more complex proxy api might be faster, but I can't see it being as flexible.  
@jondick the performance shortcoming of PAC isn't that generate the PAC, but execute it.
@battre the problem is how can we "Tries for pre-filtering or something like that" without knowing what URL is being requesting. :-)
I would also suggest to take a look at libproxy API.
Hello,

I'm the author of FoxyProxy.

@bat: I'm not clear on the difference between #1 and #3. Can you elaborate? In the case of #1, are the VMs re-entrant? If so, how would this serialize all requests to a single thread?

#2 is really a bad choice; performance will suffer greatly. Moreover, you will restrict capabilities of extensions. I can give examples if you like.

Eric Jung
I guess there are two use cases: (a) edit basic proxy settings without having to change system proxy settings or resort to command line flags and (b) have fancy, case by case proxy settings

The first is going to be adressed by the proxy settings API, the latter is probably something the web request api should address.
@jochen: yes, but (a) is a subset of (b). You can solve both use-cases with a single API. Why two?
Invoking an extension requires IPC communication and cannot be easily parallelized. The proxy extension API will already adress lots of the use cases (basically what this bug is about) while not impacting chrome's performance.
Comment 250 by jond...@gmail.com, Jan 11 2011
@grimholtz does that mean you're thinking of bringing foxyproxy to chrome?  I think in this case your comments should be heard, as you've had quite a bit of experience with firefox and how it handles things.  Your experience would be beneficial to bringing chrome up to speed in this area.
Comment 251 by r.ch...@gmail.com, Jan 11 2011
So from what I've been reading so far I can only think of a poor design that eventually lead to a problematic implementation of a custom UI driven proxy switcher.

It happens to every body, even Google I guess.
@jondick: Absolutely want to bring FoxyProxy to chrome. I've been waiting a long time for the API to make it possible. Dominic Battre reached out to me via email today, and I'm composing a a reply now. I don't know your email address, otherwise I'd cc: you.

Whatever happened to Eric Roman and Nick Baum? They were working on an API for this back in August 2009. Here's a discussion of his proposal along with my counter-proposal:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/browse_thread/thread/e6f606f11c40d36c/cf6ca019805310b3?lnk=gst

if it's dead and not being considered any longer, I won't lose any sleep over it :)
Still Won't Fix? Still won't use. It's incredible that in 2011, and a 'browser' doesn't have an independent proxy settings.

Command line? puh-leeze. Isn't there a way to make it more cumbersome?

For what is worth, I'm not moving from Firefox. Yes, FF may be a memory hog, lacks the eye-candy (not anymore in FF4) but it has been, and still is a FULL FEATURED browser.

Between the Privacy issues, the increasing spam results in Google Search, and this excuse for a browser, Google certainly is losing followers. I used to be a tremendous Google Zealot, and made family and friends convert to Google and their products, now I'm utterly disappointed, and starting to look elsewhere.

Thanks Google for ignoring your users.
Comment 254 by Deleted ...@, Jan 27 2011
I need a way for Chrome to NOT use the global windows proxy settings. For instance, There are some web apps at $WORK that only behave correctly in IE. So when I am doing work stuff, I can point IE to my ssh-tunneled socks5 proxy. The problem with this is, now Chrome (which I always have open on my secondary monitor) starts using this proxy as well, and I don't want all my non-work related stuff going through my work proxy/network.

In Firefox this is not a problem, as it has it's own independent proxy settings, not to mention the awesome FoxyProxy extension which lets you define which proxies (or non-proxy) to use based on the URL and such.

I would LOVE for Chrome to have a FoxyProxy-like extension, and would be almost as pleased if it just had the ability to define it's own proxy settings, so that it is not using the global proxy setting.
Labels: -Mstone-X Mstone-11
Status: Started
Chrome trunk has a Proxy Settings API that allows configuring different proxy settings than what the operating system provides. You need to enable "Experimental Extension APIs" in about:flags - and you need an extension that uses this Proxy Settings API. There is currently no such extension I am aware of, but we are working on that.

We are also working on an API that allows FoxyProxy-like extensions. There is no need to further emphasize the urgency of this feature request for your particular situation. ;-)
Comment 256 by Deleted ...@, Feb 8 2011
Build 9.0.597.84, at least in XP, will no longer honor command switch --proxy-server=  leaving it blank to turn off proxy. This exacerbates this issue of tying Chrome to the IE proxy. 
Please use --no-proxy-server. We are aware of the issue: http://crbug.com/72104
The --no-proxy-server flag does not work for me. When attempting to load webpages, I receive the following error:

Error 102 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED):  Unknown error.

I'm certain I'm invoking the chrome command switch correctly. I have a valid Internet connection. I'm running Google Chrome 8.0.552.224 on Windows XP SP3.
Status: Fixed
The Proxy Settings API is pretty much finalized. Be aware that the feature will now go through the release process, so it will take some time to show up in the release builds.

For the brave ones living on trunk, Mohamed has created an extension to set the proxy settings (thanks!!!): https://github.com/mohamedmansour/proxy-anywhere-extension
Thanks. Now chrome is a real browser!!!
The extension above requires the Dev Channel not necessarily trunk :) To install it, just click on "Downloads" section on GitHub and click on the crx (that was packaged)

I will be integrating the new features that Dominic implemented in the API this weekend (such as PAC, and restricted urls).

- Mohamed Mansour
Comment 262 by Deleted ...@, Mar 10 2011
I cant install the package as it is giving me error "This extension requires google chrome version 11 or greater"
Comment 263 Deleted
Comment 264 by Deleted ...@, Mar 18 2011
Today, using the PortableApps.com package of Google Chrome 11.0.696.14 Dev, I installed Chrome and tried to install the proxy-anywhere-extension.  It wouldn't install on the first try, but the error message said to start Chrome with the command line option --enable-experimental-extension-apis.   

Once I did that, the extension installed.  It took me a couple of tries to get the options right (Socks4, Localhost, 8080, autostart).  Also, once I clicked SAVE button, I thought it would just start proxying, but I had to shut down and restart Chrome and THEN it worked.

The extension works nicely now for me and just needs a good bit of polish. I hope to see new features soon!  Also for the API to be included in the release  builds!
Amazing. Thread since 2008 and chrome did not have separate proxy settings.
Thanks for the link bat...@chromium.org and good news it will be included in future builds. Nice job Mohamed - thank you! :)
Comment 267 by koko...@gmail.com, Mar 30 2011
Which style is more expected by a regular user?

Firefox: Use system proxy setting by default, but when user manually changes the proxy setting in Firefox options, the setting becomes independent and affects Firefox only.

Chrome: Use system proxy setting by default, but when user manually changes the proxy settings thru Chrome options, the setting changes the proxy setting of THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

I think it doesn't take much to see which way is more intuitive.
Mohamed extension is really nice.
I had previously downloaded proxy settings experimental extension from the samples trunk page, http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/samples.html#3e8e226d87e431296bb110b4f6eb7eec2ca7a826
and it was also working good. But this one is more complete and nicer.

Now I only hope more features will be added such as switching proxy based on site pattern.

Comment 269 by mnew...@sdlan.org, Apr 11 2011
This is a significantly absent feature in Chrome and a huge pain. I too would like to see built in proxy in chrome that would also support DNS forwarding over a socks proxy. (i.e. like Firefox)
Comment 270 by koko...@gmail.com, Apr 12 2011
When will we actually see the new proxy API in a stable public release? any timeframe?
I will not be switching from Firefox to Chrome until a separate proxy configuration dialog/window/whatever becomes part of the default Chrome package.  Regardless of how meaningless the team thinks this request is, I'm just throwing it out there as one small datapoint from someone who cares enough to actually write something about it.
Yes, Mohamed extension solved my challenge.
I wanted to switch off temporarely the corporate proxy.
Steps are simple:
* about:flags
* enable "Experimental Extension APIs"
* restart chrome
* download and install https://github.com/mohamedmansour/proxy-anywhere-extension
* restart chrome
* configure proxy server to any proxy\port
* add exclusion "*" and save config

Now every time I push the button I use "my phone internet" instead of corporate one.
Comment 273 by Deleted ...@, May 11 2011
+1, separated browser specific proxy settings are needed
+1, this does not allow me to use chrome at my workplace.
This is very essential issue. Since it overrides global settings its affecting other program's settings. Like I cannot use chrome and chromium with different proxies. etc etc many issues.
Cc: -jochen@chromium.org
+1, I can't throw firfox away because of this :)
Whats the advantage that chrome get using/modifying environment proxy settings ?
+1

I uses a separate proxy on my firefox to IE.  I would prefer to have the ability to use my own setting and not IE.  Put the box in there Chrome please!
3 years to put in proxy settings?  Seriously?!
Mac system pac file is: socks XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:XXXX,But Google Chrome pac file is:socks5 XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:XXXX,I can't use this for system or Chrome,plz help me!!!
chris: Please file a separate bug report and provide more details.
Is this gonna be solved some day?
Why is the status fixed and closed from March 1? When are we gonna be able to see this working?
The proxy settings API is available in the current beta (M13) and extensions exist to configure your proxy settings using it. E.g. Proxy Anywhere https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eejcbegfnjfjnmdikkplhbhnemddchbn and Proxy SwitchyPlus https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ipidcfpkiejdjjibecbippcokfipcfad
to be more precise .. 3 years and still available as an experimental extension only
Comment 287 by Deleted ...@, Aug 10 2011
I am trying do deploy chrome on Windows Terminal Server, i´d like to be able to disable internet explorer by setting it´s proxy to localhost or something.

Adding --proxy to the commandline won´t help, because i can´t be sure this is how users will open their browser via the edited shortcut, maybe they just clicked on a link somwhere - default browser gets opened by the system, ignoring my commandline switches.

I would really like to be able to switch my Users over to Chrome, but until there is a method for me to deploy proxy-settings on a large scale while retaining the ability to block Internet Explorer via it´s proxy settings i just can´t. Please fix this.
Note that it's also possible to configure proxy settings just for chrome through group policy. See here for more details: http://dev.chromium.org/administrators
Comment 289 by r.ch...@gmail.com, Aug 10 2011
This will never be done. This is the Google way, it is why Google+ is likely to fail as well, because when Google decides something is good, people's opinions and real needs don't matter. Don't believe me, look for my comments in this same thread from 1 YEAR AGO!! Still nothing!!.

Shame on you.
Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
The proxy extension API moved into stable with Chrome 13, which launched last week.

As Dominic noted above, there are now a few extensions in the web store that use it offer the ability to configure Chrome's proxy settings: Proxy Anywhere https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eejcbegfnjfjnmdikkplhbhnemddchbn and Proxy SwitchyPlus https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ipidcfpkiejdjjibecbippcokfipcfad for example.

If there are issues with the API we've provided, or that functionality fails to meet your needs, please open a new request via http://new.crbug.com/
Project Member Comment 291 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Mar 10 2013
Blocking: -chromium:24577 -chromium:25769 -chromium:60099 chromium:24577 chromium:25769 chromium:60099
Labels: -Mstone-11 -Area-Internals M-11 Cr-Internals
Project Member Comment 292 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Mar 13 2013
Labels: -Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit Restrict-AddIssueComment-EditIssue
Sign in to add a comment