> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Ohly [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:03 AM > To: Schaufler, Casey > Cc: José Bollo; Kis, Zoltan; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Dev] The SAPI proposal > > 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.
AMB is a service, not an application. > 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
