A Crosswalk value is "write a Crosswalk app, and it runs on every platform Crosswalk supports" --NOT-- "write a Tizen WRT app, or a Chromium app, or a Mozilla app, and Crosswalk will run it."
As such, it seems that this discussion has taken wrapping of permissions in the opposite direction of the intent for Crosswalk. The mapping isn't from CRX => Crosswalk, WGT => Crosswalk, APK => Crosswalk -- but the reverse. The developer writes a Crosswalk application, and Crosswalk utilities map those permission requests to the appropriate OS target platform's permission scheme so that the Crosswalk application, when installed, results in the appropriate platform security controls being configured for their application. James On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri < gustavo.barbi...@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:12:16PM -0300, Liu, David wrote: > > It seems we are supposing > > 1 No format's conflicts between Tizen, Chromium and Android > > They are different formats, we should handle them differently. Of > course they can get the same internal representation, but they need to > be handled differently based on file name/extension or contents. > > > > 2 Tizen can cover all the formats of Chromium and Android > > Likely, but sooner or later we'll find something that is not > covered. So we need our own internal representation that is > independent. We can start mapping 1:1 Tizen to our repr, since it > seems to be pretty decent. > > > > 3 We need to indicate the platform-type due to the format difference. > > Need to decide whether the above are appropriate. > > Yes, That's required at some level. > > > > Any misunderstanding, please feel free to correct me. Thanks > > You seem to get it right. I'd do the following myself: > > - create a Crosswalk representation (no need for a file format, only > C++ classes) that represents the entry points, features and > permissions. > > - create different parsers/extractors based on file name, extension > and contents. If we see a "crx" we use Chromium extractor, if we > see "wgt" we use another. If formats use the same name but > differentiate in the XML namespace, then we need to decide later > on. > > - each parser will instantiate and populate the crosswalk > representation, converting as needed. It may be useful to > tag/annotate the origin for future reference, however I don't see > the need for it now, let's evaluate it after we have some > implementation to test. > > For instance when we reach a mature state we may have different > Bluetooth implementations: W3C, Chromium and Tizen. When you're > parsing a chromium (crx) application and you see "bluetooth" you > convert both the permission and the required extension so it won't > load W3C or Tizen backends, just the Chromium one. OTOH if you see a > Tizen application requesting bluetooth.gap you check the permissions > and only expose Tizen bluetooth, not W3C or Chromium, etc. > > What do you think? > > -- > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > Intel Open source Technology Center > _______________________________________________ > Crosswalk-dev mailing list > Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org > https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev >
_______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
