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 <shaz...@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 <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Shazron <shaz...@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 > > >
