Re: Updated Features draft

maybe we should first as a group decide about capabilities before you remove them entirely.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:53 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Le mercredi 15 septembre 2010 à 00:32 +0200, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com 
>> Thus the architecture simplifies to the following:
>> 
>> 1. Identified APIs (or all APIs)
>> 2. trust domains
>> 3. capabilities allowed for each trust domain, either across all APIs or on a  per-API basis
> 
> I’m not convinced that we even need (3) at this point; I’m not quite
> sure what this would buy us, especially as I don’t think any browser
> currently deployed use that sub-level framework, and that W3C Widgets
> don’t refer to them either.
> 
>> This  corresponds to the Nokia contribution.
> 
> Looking at Nokia’s security framework for widget runtime engines:
> http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.php/Widget_Platform_Security
> it looks like the capabilities are very coarse (e.g. lumping together
> any kind of “user data”), which wouldn’t match what we have currently
> defined in our APIs, and would in fact go against our minimalization
> approach.
> 
> I think that this defect is likely to happen for any sub-API granularity
> (which I understand capabilities are).
> 
>> So, I'm ok with the simplification of not referring to features and
>> focusing on trust domains + capabilities + API naming (method + class
>> name I assume).
>> 
>> I'd be interested whether Paddy and Laura agree.
>> 
>> It would be great in my opinion if you can take another pass.
> 
> I’ll take a stab it (hopefully this week), but be warned that
> capabilities may be a casualty in that process :)
> 
> Dom 
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 12:58:29 UTC