W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [runtime] Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:37:29 +0000
To: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <40ACD2FA-59A4-48F8-A632-BFFA06151D30@intel.com>
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com> wrote:

>> And if we'd add a change event handler for it an app developer would not need to poll the attribute. I added a note to the PR [2] we may want to move updateState to ApplicationManagement and should consider adding an event handler for it.
>> 
>> All - do you have concerns with the updateState attribute and associated event handler (or an equivalent based on Promises) being exposed to privileged apps only?
> 
> I have nothing against moving updateState into ApplicationManagement, but if we do, I think downloadSize and downloadUpdate() should be moved as well.

Janusz - thanks for your comments.

Re downloadSize and downloadUpdate(): I tend to agree. If only a privileged app is able to invoke applyUpdate() to update the app, it seems knowing the size of the update or being able to download the update should require the same privileges.

In addition, downloading an update may cost the user money (data transfer charges e.g. while roaming or on an expensive network) and consume system resources (e.g. CPU cycles, storage space). At least user consent should be obtained. The downloadSize attribute is probably less harmful, but still may be a better fit into the ApplicationManagement, if there are no use cases for it other than finding out the size of the update ahead of its download.

All - do you have use case(s) in mind that would require downloadSize and/or downloadUpdate() to be exposed to other than privileged apps?

> And while we're at it, uninstall() seems out of place here as well (already discussed in https://github.com/sysapps/runtime/issues/92).  WDYT?


Agreed. Actually, uninstall() was already tagged as a candidate to be moved to ApplicationManagement, and was linked to the GH issue #92 in the Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal [1].

All - I plan to update the PR [2] as proposed by Janusz should there be no concerns.

-Anssi

[1] http://anssiko.github.io/runtime/privileged.html
[2] https://github.com/sysapps/runtime/pull/105
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 20:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:13 UTC