On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:03 AM Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 14:33 +0000, Allan Day wrote: > > Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Flip it on its head and please suggest why, nowadays, any > > > application > > > developer, whether for a GNOME application or a third-party, would > > > spend time integrating services into gnome-online-accounts, or > > > using > > > gnome-online-accounts for functionality that's somewhat core to the > > > application experience, when the rug can be pulled from under your > > > app > > > at any point? > > > > That's not what's happening here. Until very recently, Debarshi was > > the Documents maintainer, and he's obviously been fully involved. > > It is what is happening in GNOME Online Accounts in general. Pocket is > disabled in Fedora 29, and there's a good chance that the mail > configuration bits will be disabled in Fedora 30. > > I don't know whether those changes will also be done upstream, but the > result will be the same, it won't be possible for applications shipped > through Flatpak to know that certain configuration options will be > available in GNOME Online Accounts. > > I believe in the larger picture, this is a logical consequence of taking the boundary between desktop and apps seriously. It is just not right to give all 3rd party apps that show up in a flatpak access to the GNOME api keys and identity. They need to use their own keys. Offering a centralized service for storing such keys, as Emmanuele suggests, might still be useful.
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
