Re: Request to make one proposal for execution model and security model

On 13/02/13 14:08, Wonsuk Lee wrote:
> Hi. Jungkee, Mounir, Jonas and all.
> 
> Jungkee, thanks a lot for your proposal.
> 
> Mounir and Jonas, for going forward, the WG have to get your feedback!! I
> hope to get your opinions soon.

Hi,

Again, sorry for taking so long to reply to this.

I do not thing that merging the two documents is the best way to go. I
think we will inevitably end up in contradictory terms and definitions
and it would take a long time to unify the merged document. For example,
you can see that the merged document mentioned "hosted applications",
"packaged applications" and "system applications" depending on whether
the block was originally written in the Mozilla's proposal or the
Samsung's one.

I believe that the best way to start is to keep one document and expand
it. That way, we can keep a consistent document and make sure that the
feature set matches everyone's needs. Given that the features covered by
the documents are not dramatically different, this shouldn't be a too
hard process.

The current document from Mozilla defines an API for a web application
to become a store, it defines what is a hosted applications and how an
application can be self-hosted. We care particularly about those parts
of our specification and we think that this is the angular stone of a
successful web applications ecosystem. Those concepts are missing from
the Samsung document and merged proposal. We also specify the System
Message mechanism that we believe is important to make events working
for installed web applications. Typically, it solves issues that the
service request with the request event would run into (we can get into
details later).

However, the document from Samsung has a better Execution model than the
Mozilla proposal.

Except that, the main differences between those two documents are the
API to manage the applications but we believe that there will be a lot
of work on those anyway and whether we use Mozilla's or Samsung's API as
a base, it is quite unlikely that the final document will look similar
to the first iteration.

As a consequence, we would like to propose to use Mozilla's document as
a base for the Execution and Security Model specification and update the
document to include the missing features from the Samsung execution
model which the Mozilla draft doesn't currently have. Specifically we
propose to add the following properties on the Application interface:
onlaunched, onterminated, onresumed, onpaused as well as the hide()
function. Is there anything else we could add to make this go forward?

Sorry again for this late reply and I hope this proposal will make sense.

Thanks,
--
Mounir

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 00:16:16 UTC