Hi, The service mode design(DBus based) was made by Bai and Gustavo. Below is the doc describing it: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1q2Zl_P949NLe5YnQoLP2OWcZStVJgXyHKZDUwhiUxJQ/edit#
>From the CrosswalkCurrentStatus.png, if I understand correctly, you’re >thinking the xwalk-launcher and xwalk-daemon are 1-1 mapping. This’s not the >case in current impl, the mapping is 1-1 for xwalk-launcher and >xwalk-app(RP/EP). >From my point of view, the xwalk-launcher acts as a proxy between Tizen app >framework and xwalk-daemon. With it we can make a more clear and security >design. Currently there are constraints on AMD/AUL, every process communicate >with AMD(through socket) has to provide the correct application ID in its >cmdline to check app type, permission and etc. Without xwalk-launcher we need >to make every RP has the correct app_id in cmdline, which also means the >communication between AMD will happens between RP and AMD, and the security >model will break too. Maybe Bai can provide more details on why we choose DBus instead of socket on the design :) Thanks, Xiang From: Baptiste Durand [mailto:baptiste.dur...@open.eurogiciel.org] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:34 PM To: Long, Xiang Cc: Poussa, Sakari; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; Santos, Thiago; crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org; Dominig Ar Foll Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API Hello Xiang, I have some questions about your proposal. Currently, crosswalk interfaces are provided through dbus session, correct? We need to have only 1 AMD process for the system, as done in the legacy WRT model. As I understand, the control is done through 3 processes AMD <=> Xwalk launcher <=> Xwalk deamon <=> (APPs) . ^ ^ | | IPC User D-Bus iface I would like to clarify why we need to have 1 xwalk-launcher process per APP launched. Could you please provide some details about the exact aim of Xwalk launcher process? As xwalk deamon offers interfaces through dbus user interfaces that could be used only by user associated . It seems to be difficult to manage multiple user at same time. Could you clarify your point of view about this specific aspect? In my point of view, xwalk deamon could provide interfaces management over socket Because I thinks it will be more preferable to use socket IPC between AMD and xwalk deamon, that permits to manage eaily all APP (as describe in AMD-socket.png). <=> xwalk deamon. (for USER A) over socket /run/user/<USER A>/alaunch/1 AMD <=> xwalk deamon. (for USER B) over socket /run/user/<USER B>/alaunch/1 <=> xwalk deamon. (for USER C) over socket /run/user/<USER C>/alaunch/1 Sakari said to me today, that interface dbus is develloped under crosswalk project and it s not related to Chromium / blink project. We are wondering if it is possible to propose a control interface through socket interface. What is your point of view on it? Thanks in advance for feedback. BR Baptiste DURAND 2014-02-13 7:01 GMT+01:00 Long, Xiang <xiang.l...@intel.com<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>>: Hi, As the support for Application API becomes necessary again(per Tizen IVI requirement), would you revisit the doc? I will start with application info/event/ops APIs, as mentioned in the "Implementation Plan" section. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10rDpiH2E2bSOp0gg3FNK-2eFIetkPygM98utBv-tB3I/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10rDpiH2E2bSOp0gg3FNK-2eFIetkPygM98utBv-tB3I/edit> Thanks, Long Xiang > -----Original Message----- > From: Poussa, Sakari > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:02 PM > To: Long, Xiang; Barbieri, Gustavo; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde > Christiansen; Oliveira, Caio > Cc: > crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API > > Hi, > > I am not saying that we should never implement it. Rather, take a timeout > now and see where and when the real need is. > > About your concerns: > > 1. See above. If we truly need it, we’ll do it. But now it is not the > right time. > 2. We need to re-visit our runtime model plans and those APIs are related > to that > 3. Wayland, new EFL and e18 versions are the biggest changes in 3.0. So > things will be different. > > BR; Sakari > > On 1/16/14, 5:02, "Long, Xiang" > <xiang.l...@intel.com<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>> wrote: > > >Hi Sakari, > > > >Right, the app control part is a poor-man's WebIntents/WebActivities. > >But as I know, the app control feature really works on Tizen(at least in > >2.1), there're already QA test cases for it. > >And seems the legacy WRT are adding new features to it, like > >"disposition" field support. > > > >IMO the app control part is an important system level app interaction > >API, native Tizen app also provides such feature. > >Other APIs also have dependency on it. One example is the Notification > >API(https://developer.tizen.org/dev-guide/2.2.1/org.tizen.web.device.apire > >ference/tizen/notification.html#postidp141560). > > > >So my concerns are: > >1. If we don't support app control, a big feature will be missed on > >Crosswalk, and API like Notification will break. > > > >2. How about other parts of the Application API set? Like app info, app > >launch/kill, app install/update/uninstall events, and etc. > >Should we implement them anyway? > > > >3. Do you know will there big change for the Tizen app core > >framework(like AUL, window management), and app control for Tizen 3.0? > >If this's true, then I'm totally agree to hold the app control part > >implementation ATM. > > > >Thanks, > >Xiang > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Poussa, Sakari > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:33 PM > >> To: Long, Xiang; Barbieri, Gustavo; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde > >> Christiansen > >> Cc: > >> crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application > >>API > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I am very worried about this API for multiple reasons. > >> > >> First, it was invented for Tizen 1.0 as a Œpoor-mans¹ WebIntents. That > >>is, > >> temporary API similar to WebIntents and plan was to replace that in > >>Tizen > >> 2.0 with proper WebIntents. We all know what happened with WebIntents. > >>It > >> is dead but this API is not. > >> > >> Second, it is very complex API and may not work properly even in Tizen > >> 2.x. It would require a lot of time to develop, review, test and debug. > >> Big effort. > >> > >> Third, as I have said several times, we should focus on implementing > >>fewer > >> APIs but making sure the ones we do work properly. In my books, this API > >> does not be belong to the category we should implement now. We need to > >> check our stakeholders, namely IVI program, and see if they need this > >>API. > >> > >> So before we have a clear need for this API, I would put the > >> implementation effort on hold. > >> > >> BR; Sakari > >> > >> > >> On 1/15/14, 11:13, "Long, Xiang" > >> <xiang.l...@intel.com<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>> wrote: > >> > >> >Thanks for the comments, I have updated the doc. > >> >A new implementation plan section is created, and I copied some > >> >background info from the previous doc for reference. > >> > > >> >Thanks, > >> >Xiang > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Barbieri, Gustavo > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:16 PM > >> >> To: Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; Long, Xiang > >> >> Cc: > >> >> crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> > >> >> Subject: RE: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application > >> >>API > >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- > >> >> > From: Crosswalk-dev > >> >> > [mailto:crosswalk-dev-bounces@lists.crosswalk-<mailto:crosswalk-dev-bounces@lists.crosswalk-> > >> >> > project.org<http://project.org>] On Behalf Of Pozdnyakov, Mikhail > >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:08 PM > >> >> > To: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; Long, Xiang > >> >> > Cc: > >> >> > crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> > >> >> > Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] > >> >> > Application API > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi there, > >> >> > > >> >> > Unfortunately, for me it was really hard to understand the intended > >> >> > implementation proposal from the doc (left some comments there with > >> >> > clarification requirements). > >> >> > > >> >> > I can add also that API at https://developer.tizen.org/dev- > >> >> > > >>guide/2.2.1/org.tizen.web.device.apireference/tizen/application.html > >> >> > is really over-complicated. > >> >> > Think we might consider partial implementation, and we definitely > >> >> > should have an implementation schedule starting with the basic and > >> >> > simplest APIs. > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >Crosswalk-dev mailing list > >> >Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto: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<mailto:Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev -- Baptiste DURAND Eurogiciel Vannes/FR
_______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
