We've already started to tackle the issue (see the existing code that is turned on with --safe-plugins), we just haven't solved it. As several of us have said in the thread, we'd welcome additional contributions towards a robust plugin sandbox. However, if someone doesn't believe us when we (a) say it's harder than it looks and (b) give examples, there's not much we can do to convince him or her. In the meantime, anyone who wants to run plugins sandboxed, and put up with the compatibility problems that result, is welcome to use the --safe-plugins switch. That's what it's for. --Amanda
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM, PhistucK <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry to disturb here, at the end of the line, but - are you not going to > tackle this issue? > ☆PhistucK > > > > -- "Portability is generally the result of advance planning rather than trench warfare involving #ifdef" -- Henry Spencer (1992) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
