cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Whitelist defaults
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:26:45 GMT
I confirm that Android also uses config.xml.


On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would think all unsupported devices for the whitelist feature remain
> unsupported (and is documented as such:
>
> http://docs.phonegap.com/en/2.2.0/guide_whitelist_index.md.html#Domain%20Whitelist%20Guide
> )
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does this mean that whitelists should be added to Bada, Symbian,
> > WebOS, Windows Phone, and Windows 8?
> >
> > Also, while we are discussing it, wouldn't it be good to have all
> > platforms have a consistent way of defining access-permissions ?
> >
> > Android:: res/xml/cordova.xml
> > Blackberry:: www/config.xml
> > iOS:: Cordova.plist
> > Tizen:: config.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What Anis said last is what I meant. Since BB and Android have this
> > > behaviour already this doesn't impact those platforms as much. Will
> wait
> > > for comments until tomorrow then I will add some JIRA task(s).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Why would we require a new property? We're just talking about adding
> > * as
> > >> > the default property.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I believe this applied only if we did a debug/release mode strategy.
> > Adding
> > >> (*) as default doesn't require a new property from what I understand.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > (Also, Jesse, I have talked to many Cordova devs whom have expressed
> > >> > frustration with our default.)
> > >> >
> > >> > I feel we have consensus enough to document and add this default.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Well it's all or nothing. There is no "dev" mode with respect
to
> the
> > >> > plist
> > >> > > itself as it is right now, unless we want to add yet another
plist
> > >> > > property.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I guess the consensus is to whitelist everything (*) all
the
> time.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > My opinion is that there should be some dev mode where (*)
is
> set
> > and
> > >> > > then
> > >> > > > a release mode where you'd specify your hosts.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > We've had the discussion. So what is the decision/consensus?
> > Leave
> > >> as
> > >> > > is,
> > >> > > > > or add "*" to default settings for all, with a warning
in the
> > >> console
> > >> > > > log?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Joe Bowser <
> bowserj@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > Echoing Anis here. The easiest use case is
for corporate
> use
> > >> > > > > (internal),
> > >> > > > > > > where any connections are restricted to a
certain domain
> for
> > >> > > paranoid
> > >> > > > > IT
> > >> > > > > > > types.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I can see the case of us allowing everything
_by default_
> > >> though
> > >> > > (eg
> > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > the '*'), which really should have been the
default so as
> > to be
> > >> > > > > > "backwards
> > >> > > > > > > compatible" with how it was before the whitelist
came in.
> > The
> > >> > > system
> > >> > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > detect this sole wildcard entry, and print
out a warning
> in
> > the
> > >> > > > console
> > >> > > > > > > log, as well as the documentation of course
pointing this
> > out
> > >> --
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > latter
> > >> > > > > > > which we should have done in the first place.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > OK, that sounds cool, but does that mean that
in six months,
> > >> we're
> > >> > > > > > going to deprecate this behaviour and get more
aggressive
> with
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > whitelist?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > BTW: In the event that the whitelist isn't found
based on
> the
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > > that I'm looking at here, Android should block
everything
> and
> > >> fire
> > >> > > > > > default web intents.  If it's not doing this,
that's a bug!
> > When
> > >> we
> > >> > > > > > refer to defaults, are we referring to the config.xml
that
> > we're
> > >> > > > > > circulating?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Also, how are we testing this whitelisting feature?
I can
> tell
> > >> you
> > >> > > > > > that doing it in JS alone wouldn't be enough.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Joe
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > @purplecabbage
> > risingj.com
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message