On 19 Apr 2014, at 11:42 am, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Paul Theriault <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Both APIs have a similar prompt, and would likely have a similar name in the >> settings app, possibly leading to confusion for the user. So I think we >> should aim to have a single camera prompt and single camera permission in >> the settings app. But I am not what the long term plan is for mozCamera, or >> what the best approach to achieve this unified UI. > > Agreed. There's no reason to separate these two security-wise. > > One important question is, will we require that application enumerate > some permission in the app manifest in order to use getUserMedia? We > did this for geolocation and for the notification APIs, where even > though normal web pages can use these APIs, if an app wants to use > them we require the app to enumerate a permission in its manifest. > > Requiring the permission to be in the manifest does have the advantage > that we can make those permissions show up in the settings app's UI > for configuring application permissions. I'm inclined to require the > same for getUserMedia for the same reason. gUM on b2g currently requires video-capture/audio-capture to be declared in the manifest, and I agree we should continue this. > > But I think that regarding what we put in the permissions part of the > manifest, and what we display to the user both in prompts and in the > settings UI, we should treat mozCamera and getUserMedia the same. So > we should figure out a single permission name which would cover both > APIs. I'm fine with this being "video-capture" if that's what the > WebRTC team prefers. If we are not going to expose mozCamera and video-capture to the same app levels (i.e. if mozCamera is privileged only), I was thinking we would need to keep the permissions separate. For example, if we merged to use ‘video-capture’ - this has to be prompt for web-apps and web content, but we want to deny mozCamera access to hosted and web content. I suppose we could change the mozCamera permission check to check for both the permission, and the app level, which I assume is what you have in mind. That sounds like a more simple approach to what I had in mind so (e.g. grant both permissions with one prompt) so I’ll raise a bug to merge the permissions. > >> Do we plan to expose mozCamera to regular web apps and web content, and >> perhaps could we therefore eventually just use the same permission)? Or do >> we need want to remain having separate permissions, and unify the prompt and >> the permission in the settings app somehow? > > Starting with the v2.0 release I'd like to expose mozCamera to > privileged apps. I'd like to not expose it to normal webpages given > that we likely need to deprecate the API at some point. > > Eventually I am indeed hoping that getUserMedia will be able to meet > the same use cases as mozCamera does, however so far that is not the > case. Ok great - this is exactly the guidance I was looking for. Maire - if there are no objections from the webrtc team, this is approach I will advocate in bug 938467. > > / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
