On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:56:34 -0700, Chris Stratton wrote: > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:38:49 PM UTC-4, Hendrik Boom wrote: >> >> Instead of a user-id belonging to a human user, a user-id belong to an >> application. So even if they implemented "~" as a home directory >> (which they may well do), it wouldn't deal with my case. >> > The more significant consequence of this is that because each app is > generally it's own userid, there are a lot of mechanism in place to > allow specific sharing across userids for the benefit of the human. > That would have to be seriously rethought before the device could have > two humans with different access rights to content. Or leaving alone > rights, even different default responses. You want to share that on > facebook? On who's facebook?
I'm not far enough into the development documentation yet, but presumably each app has its own home directory, or something like it, where it stores its temporary and persistent files. Since user=specific data are there, the app would have to know how to distinguish between user- specific and non-specific data. Or android itself would have to make that distinction for it, and each user-app pair would effectively have to have its own user id. Perhaps an app could then be a group? This might have been possible from start, at the beginning of time, bu I suspect retrofitting all the existing android apps for this might well be too much for the ecosystem. Not to mention the potential of Linus running out of user ids. Are they still two-byte numbers? -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
