OK, so the guy posted his use case. I think we should ask him for a patch, since he clearly has implemented it already.
Thoughts? On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know why this is needed, to be honest. I'll ask in the ticket. > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Simon MacDonald > <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's my question, why do we need this? >> >> Simon Mac Donald >> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't think there's any such thing as an untrusted plugin when you're >>> talking about letting it include whatever source it wants in your project. >>> >>> I think this request is reasonable, but I'd also be curious to know what >>> the use-cases are. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hey >>> > >>> > So, this was a feature request and I can see how it can be useful, but >>> > I can also see how an untrusted plugin can go and totally screw with >>> > other plugins. I know that we basically assume that developers who >>> > use plugins know what they are doing, but after all the times we broke >>> > plugins we know that this definitely isn't the case. So, how do >>> > people feel about this issue? Should we punt it and say that it's a >>> > security risk because application devs can't read Java, or do we allow >>> > it and warn plugin developers. >>> > >>> > Any thoughts? >>> > >>> > Joe >>> > >>>
