On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 14:54 +0000, Schaufler, Casey wrote: > I have been looking closely at Crosswalk and assuming that: > > 1. All profiles use Crosswalk > 2. All web application use Crosswalk > 3. Native application support is not yet defined > > there may not be a need for SAPI. > > Recent discussions between the security and Crosswalk teams > about the Crosswalk architecture lead me to understand that > the browser component has to do everything that SAPI is > designed to accomplish. SAPI is redundant in the case where > the application is running in the Crosswalk web runtime.
I agree that SAPI is not needed for extensions implemented in the shared browser process. As discussed before, that process needs to call Cynara itself and then is free to access whatever system services it needs. But how do you propose to handle extensions implemented in the extensions process? So, which Smack label shall that process have, and shall it call Cynara itself instead of relying on the system to do that? IMHO SAPI specifically is not needed for the extension process either, other mechanisms could also be used. But we need to do something. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
