Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:45 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> thanks for the explanation, it clarifies a lot of things. >> >> As I just said to Ivan and coderanger on irc we needs to be clear on >> the actual goals for Trial-3. In particular I'd like to know: >> >> 1 Are we aiming to enable this by default for Trial-3 >> > > Yes. If activities in containers don't go into Trial 3, they will not > get into FRS. They don't have to be locked down at all, just have > activities launched in containers. We just have to figure out by > Trial-3 if people can fix the bugs that come up. If they can't, we rip > containers back out and re-evaluate the security position. > > >> 2 Are we aiming at pushing one-instance-per-process for Trial-3 >> > > We may just end up whitelisting EToys and Browse as > multiple-instance-per-process activities, and just accept that one > Browse instance can interact adversely with all other instances. I > don't think we've made that call concretely yet though we did discuss > it on the train today. > This has always been the plan for the two of them AFAIK. When we formalize the new launcher protocol, I intend to use Browse as the POC of monolithic activities.
--Noah _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
