On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 16:31 +0000, Schaufler, Casey wrote: > > 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? > > The extensions process is the manifestation of the application > and is served only by the render and browser processes. An extension > that tries to communicate with a service provider other than the > browser will be blocked by Smack.
Extensions will not be allowed to use system services at all? I know of at least one specific example where that is not going to be sufficient (Automotive Message Broker) and I'm pretty sure there are more. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what you meant with your email. Let's not dive into more Crosswalk specific discussions here; it would be off-topic for a thread about SAPI. -- 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
