Late to the party but I think this is a reasonable request. On 9/14/12 3:41 PM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The more the merrier. > >Simon Mac Donald >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald > > >On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>> > >> >>> >>
