On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Muizelaar <jmuizel...@mozilla.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> >> wrote: >> > >> > dlopening libvoikko, if installed, and having thin C++ glue code >> > in-tree seems much simpler, except maybe for sandboxing. What are the >> > sandboxing implications of dlopening a shared library that will want >> > to load its data files? >> >> My understanding is that the spell checker mostly lives in the Chrome >> process so it seems sandboxing won't be a problem. > > > That is mostly correct. The spell checker *completely* lives in the parent > process and is completely unaffected by sandboxing. > > But that's actually a problem. My understanding is that WebExtensions won't > be allowed to load code in the parent process. Bill, Kris, is that correct? > If yes, we should work with the maintainers of the Finnish and Greenlandic > dictionaries on adding custom support for loading their code...
But when (according to doing a Google Web search excluding mozilla.org and wading through all the results and by searching the JS for all AMO-hosted extensions) the only out-of-tree spell checkers use libvoikko, why involve Web Extensions at all? Why wouldn't we dlopen libvoikko and put a thin C++ adapter between libvoikko's C API and our internal C++ interface in-tree? That would be significantly simpler than involving Web extensions. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
