RE: [runtime] Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal

Hi, Anssi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kostiainen, Anssi [mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:44 PM
> To: public-sysapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [runtime] Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 4, 2013, at 8:48 PM, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to revisit the discussion around splitting ApplicationManagement
> interface [1] and other parts of the Runtime spec relevant to privileged
> applications only into their own spec. In the original thread [2] Marcos and
> Jonas +1'd the idea, and I'm also in favour of the proposal.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> All - WDYT? Do you have concerns re splitting out parts that are relevant to
> privileged applications only into a separate spec as proposed above?
> >
> > I'm seeing +1s and no concerns, so I've sent a pull request:
> >
> >  https://github.com/sysapps/runtime/pull/105
> >
> > Editors, All - Please review the PR and let me know if there are any issues.
> 
> Thank you for everyone who have already reviewed the proposal or sent
> comments. It seems all the comments received so far have been in favor of
> the proposal.
> 
> All - should you have concerns with this proposal (see the pull request above),
> please speak up on the list or in the PR comments.

Is it necessary for ApplicationManagment to add 'onupdateavailable' event? 
In that sense, web app could call 'applyUpdate' if onupdateavailable gets triggered. Otherwise, it seems there is any hint to call apply update.

> 
> I'd expect the editors of the Runtime spec to merge the pull request shortly, if
> there are no concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Anssi

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 03:02:38 UTC