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 <purplecabb...@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 <shaz...@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.ka...@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 <shaz...@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.ka...@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 <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 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > @purplecabbage > risingj.com >
