> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Ohly [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:13 PM > To: Zhang, Xu U > Cc: Tomasz Swierczek; Schaufler, Casey; Kis, Zoltan; [email protected]; > He, Xinchao; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Dev] The SAPI proposal > > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:59 +0000, Zhang, Xu U wrote: > > The general flow for Tizen API case is as below: > > (1) When Tizen device JS API such as Bluetooth.read() is called, render > process will send IPC to extension process firstly. > > (2) When extension process receives the message, extension process > > will call SAPI > > ... or some other system services. I suggest to describe the extension process > as "calling the system" instead of "calling SAPI", because for the security > architecture of Crosswalk it is irrelevant how the system exposes services, as > long as it does securely. > > It is relevant for actually writing the extension code, of course. Right now, > extensions cannot call SAPI (does not exist yet) while they can call existing > services. This takes us from architecture considerations into the realm of the > more practical "how do we actually get work done"; not sure whether we want > to go there. > [Zhang Xu ] Yes, you are right. For Tizen crosswalk extension, currently extension process call system APIs directly. So we need add a check before calling system APIs to make sure extension process has the permission to access. > -- > 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
