On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, John J Barton <[email protected]> > wrote: > [...] >> >> I'm not saying we can't do better, I am claiming that the impact of >> adding security features to the programming language is not (yet?) >> justified. > > > I must have missed something. What language change suggestions are you > reacting to? > > ES5 already supports SES and ES6 will as well, probably somewhat better. The > "costs" were largely non-controversial and are behind us in any case. >
Well David seems to be building up to something, so I wanted to get some controversy out in front. >> >> There are better solutions based on iframes that do not >> require such large investments. In particular, systems like q-comm >> allow controlled API access between isolated JS environments. > > > I am (as you know) a big fan of q-comm and such Q libraries, as well as the > communicating event loop model where iframe/worker like units only interact > by asynchronous messages. These certainly have their place, and that place > is huge. > > However, I *strongly* disagree that iframes are a better security mechanism > than the language-based mechanisms provided by SES. iframes are an unholy > mess, and *by design and specification* (both old and HTML5) cannot support > confinement. The best way to leverage the security that Q-like libraries can > provide is to see them as extending SES out onto the network. iframes seem to be effective for the cases David outlined. jjb _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
