I confirm that Android also uses config.xml.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would think all unsupported devices for the whitelist feature remain > unsupported (and is documented as such: > > http://docs.phonegap.com/en/2.2.0/guide_whitelist_index.md.html#Domain%20Whitelist%20Guide > ) > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Does this mean that whitelists should be added to Bada, Symbian, > > WebOS, Windows Phone, and Windows 8? > > > > Also, while we are discussing it, wouldn't it be good to have all > > platforms have a consistent way of defining access-permissions ? > > > > Android:: res/xml/cordova.xml > > Blackberry:: www/config.xml > > iOS:: Cordova.plist > > Tizen:: config.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What Anis said last is what I meant. Since BB and Android have this > > > behaviour already this doesn't impact those platforms as much. Will > wait > > > for comments until tomorrow then I will add some JIRA task(s). > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Why would we require a new property? We're just talking about adding > > * as > > >> > the default property. > > >> > > > >> > > >> I believe this applied only if we did a debug/release mode strategy. > > Adding > > >> (*) as default doesn't require a new property from what I understand. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > (Also, Jesse, I have talked to many Cordova devs whom have expressed > > >> > frustration with our default.) > > >> > > > >> > I feel we have consensus enough to document and add this default. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Well it's all or nothing. There is no "dev" mode with respect to > the > > >> > plist > > >> > > itself as it is right now, unless we want to add yet another plist > > >> > > property. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I guess the consensus is to whitelist everything (*) all the > time. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My opinion is that there should be some dev mode where (*) is > set > > and > > >> > > then > > >> > > > a release mode where you'd specify your hosts. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > We've had the discussion. So what is the decision/consensus? > > Leave > > >> as > > >> > > is, > > >> > > > > or add "*" to default settings for all, with a warning in the > > >> console > > >> > > > log? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Joe Bowser < > bows...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > Echoing Anis here. The easiest use case is for corporate > use > > >> > > > > (internal), > > >> > > > > > > where any connections are restricted to a certain domain > for > > >> > > paranoid > > >> > > > > IT > > >> > > > > > > types. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I can see the case of us allowing everything _by default_ > > >> though > > >> > > (eg > > >> > > > > > adding > > >> > > > > > > the '*'), which really should have been the default so as > > to be > > >> > > > > > "backwards > > >> > > > > > > compatible" with how it was before the whitelist came in. > > The > > >> > > system > > >> > > > > > could > > >> > > > > > > detect this sole wildcard entry, and print out a warning > in > > the > > >> > > > console > > >> > > > > > > log, as well as the documentation of course pointing this > > out > > >> -- > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > latter > > >> > > > > > > which we should have done in the first place. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OK, that sounds cool, but does that mean that in six months, > > >> we're > > >> > > > > > going to deprecate this behaviour and get more aggressive > with > > >> the > > >> > > > > > whitelist? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > BTW: In the event that the whitelist isn't found based on > the > > >> code > > >> > > > > > that I'm looking at here, Android should block everything > and > > >> fire > > >> > > > > > default web intents. If it's not doing this, that's a bug! > > When > > >> we > > >> > > > > > refer to defaults, are we referring to the config.xml that > > we're > > >> > > > > > circulating? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, how are we testing this whitelisting feature? I can > tell > > >> you > > >> > > > > > that doing it in JS alone wouldn't be enough. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Joe > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > >
