No, I don't automatically agree with what I'm told simply because I'm told it, Google or not :) more of us need to think for ourselves if your asking my opinion.
However it's obvious what they are suggesting and why. It might even work to a degree, though I think it would be of limited help because there are at least two (likely more) bottlenecks where the system could be spoofed. The fact is that if someone wants to get at your code, they will. No system of this nature can be perfectly secure. Goodness knows Apple has tried with the iPhone and they are in a much better position to do it if it was possible. That doesn't mean we should not try to secure our work, just that we need to include "breakage" (if I might borrow a term from retail and manufacture) in our estimates. - Brill Pappin On 2011-01-06, at 7:04 PM, Zsolt Vasvari <zvasv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> BTW - I'm not sure I completely agree with Zsolt on the modification. > > So you don't agree with Google on the modification? It's not coming > from me, it's coming from Google. I showed you the link. > > Obviously, you wouldn't change the algorithm, just how the code is > integrated/organized. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
