Pardon my french, but the whole idea is ridiculous. Web development is
fluid and flexible. While I most certainly understand the idea and the
need for secured loadable code (AFAIK I brought up this issue about 2
months ago), packaging and complicated signing is counter productive.
What about external scripts like jquery? Do I really need to download a
complete package because I fixed a stupid typo in one of the scripts?

Maybe I am completely on the wrong track here (please correct me if I
am) - but I think signed code should be handled completely different -
thus preserving the flexibility of the LAMP/Script environment as we
know it.


On 01/30/2015 03:22 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2015-01-29 20:14:59 -0500, Yan Zhu wrote:
>> A signed manifest-like package description that lists the hash and
>> location of every resource seems fine as long as all the resources are
>> downloaded and verified before running the app. Perhaps this kills
>> some of the performance benefits motivating packaging in the first
>> place. :(
> Why would you need to fetch all the pieces before running the app?
> Consider a manifest includes an integrity check covering resources X, Y,
> and Z, but X is the only bit of code that runs first, and Y and Z aren't
> loaded.
> If you can validate the manifest, then you know you only run X if you've
> verified the manifest and X's integrity.  If the user triggers an action
> that requires resource Y, then you fetch it but don't use it unless it
> matches the integrity check.
> (i haven't developed webapps myself for ages, and the idea of a signed
> webapp is relatively new to me, so feel free to explain any obvious part
> that i'm missing)
>         --dkg

Reply via email to