On 08/31/2011 11:16 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
Right now you pass the plugin an URL to a manifest file, so it's not
hardcoded to seek out the URL based on extensions.gnome.org. The idea
here was that if we needed to offload the servers with the extension
data to a CDN, we wouldn't have to make
I think
sandboxinghttps://developer.mozilla.org/En/SpiderMonkey/JSAPI_User_Guide#Object-capabilities-based_securityis
not the only option,
Spidermonkey supports stack
walkinghttps://developer.mozilla.org/En/SpiderMonkey/JSAPI_User_Guide#Fine-grained_security,
so it would be possible to assign a
Am 31.08.2011 20:03, schrieb Sriram Ramkrishna:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Ralph Hofmann hofmann2...@arcor.de
mailto:hofmann2...@arcor.de wrote:
I like the idea of javascript based plugins like in Firefox. I
think that could become the killer feature of Gnome3. Of course
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 14:29 +0200, Ralph Hofmann wrote:
Am 31.08.2011 20:03, schrieb Sriram Ramkrishna:
The killer feature is GObject and GObject introspection. We've had
that for a number of years, but it is now front and center.
Why GObject and GObject introspection?
I look at it from
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 17:25 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote:
I thought this would naturally be the case, as well. However, I've
recently read in #gnome-design two different *lead* designers claim to
not use workspaces. Both instances were in the context of discussing
issues people found, so maybe
Hiya,
On G2 I almost always used 2 or 3 virtual desktops to keep tabs of everything,
but with G3 I found that having more than 1 virtual desktop is difficult to
keep tabs on if you'll excuse the pun.. instead it seems easier to use the alt
tab for task switching, and the windows key to get to
I totally agree with you.
Yes: G3 sets a new paradigm in User Experience, AND that's one of the
great things about it. Of course it needs work, otherwise, as Jasper
implied earlier, it would be perfect, and not being perfect (I've known
little or no perfect thing in my lifetime) is fun for
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Ralph Hofmann hofmann2...@arcor.de wrote:
Am 31.08.2011 20:03, schrieb Sriram Ramkrishna:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Ralph Hofmann hofmann2...@arcor.dewrote:
I like the idea of javascript based plugins like in Firefox. I think that
could become the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
n Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Pasha R pashar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Ben Greear gree...@candelatech.com wrote:
I couldn't find a better place to voice my displeasure of Gnome 3,
so
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 17:16 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
[...]
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
The idea of a GNOME Shell extension is to let the GNOME community
build on top of the GNOME Shell code base, to tweak, to customize, and
to prototype new
A) Make the plugin only tell the downloader what to download and not
to download it from.
You still need a key - even if the https:// authentication for gnome.org
itself to prove the connection is to the correct site.
B) Sign extension dowloads with a gnome.org private key.
A) is
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 18:16 +0300, Pasha R wrote:
My problem is that shell is simply inconvenient to use and insulting
attitude of developers
I don't feel insulted at all.
that think that they know better what I should
or shouldn't want to do with my computer.
This is *always* true; they
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 22:35 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Of course, Linux users run unsandboxed code with arbitary capabilities
every day - applications, for example. So the security question with
GNOME Shell extensions is not how we can do the almost impossible job
of sandboxing them, but how
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 18:16 +0300, Pasha R wrote:
My problem is that shell is simply inconvenient to use and insulting
attitude of developers
I don't feel insulted at all.
Good for you. I find an attitude
Some review comments reading the code to sweettooth-plugin:
* I don't see any reason that this shouldn't just live in the
gnome-shell tree - that would at least reduce the problem
of the plugin and gnome-shell having incompatible versions.
It would also avoid having packages with the
Le mercredi 31 août 2011 à 10:01 -0400, D.H. Bahr a écrit :
We would use this for changing the Information Architecture of the
shell itself.
Allow me to explain myself: our biggest client is the Public Sector
which is instructed to migrate from privative to free software thus
becoming our
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
Some review comments reading the code to sweettooth-plugin:
* I don't see any reason that this shouldn't just live in the
gnome-shell tree - that would at least reduce the problem
of the plugin and gnome-shell having
17 matches
Mail list logo
