Please don't go back to when every new dev had to struggle with the Google
group or irc to find out why their ajax requests didn't work.

There was a huuuuge discussion at the time that we chose to default to *
On 04/12/2013 6:03 am, "Michal Mocny" <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org
> >wrote:
>
> > There are two different files here: one is defaults.xml, which the CLI
> > takes as the basis for its platform config.xml. The other is the
> config.xml
> > that you get after running bin/create. In the CLI world, that second file
> > is immediately overwritten by one created from defaults.xml, the
> top-level
> > app config.xml, etc.
> >
>
> Okay, thats what I thought we were doing, but I cannot find where/how the
> defaults.xml is created in the first place.  I see now that it does exist
> in my CLI projects, but seems not to exist inside our platforms nor CLI,
> nor can I find the code that generates it.
>
>
> >
> > I support the second point of removing the <access origin="*" /> from the
> > CLI's hello world template app; it should be turned into a comment.
> >
>
> Seems this is redundant anyway given that the platforms provide this as a
> default.  Regarding leaving it in as a comment: should we embed the full
> spec as a comment?  If not, I would just leave a general description and
> link to the spec docs online.
>
>
> > I don't think we should be including <access origin="*" /> by default
> > anywhere, unless we really do want to disable the whitelist on that
> > platform. And if we do want to disable it, why not in the native code
> > instead of allowing everything by default?
> >
>
> I remember about a year ago we had a bunch of talks regarding the default
> whitelist, and decided that almost every developer doesn't want to use a
> whitelist and wants every request to be allowed by default.  For those few
> devs that want this (false?) sense of security they can learn how to
> opt-in, instead of having the same question on the user lists over and over
> about how to opt-out.
>
> Changing the platforms to allow * by default is an interesting idea, but I
> would rather see a solution that doesn't need that change.  Plus its a bit
> less semantic/declarative aka more magical/surprising.
>
>
> >
> > Braden
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On ios, the default config.xml file (aka the platform defaults) is
> > bundled
> > > as part of the ios project template, and the project template is easy
> to
> > > override using flags to create script / CLI config options.  Easy,
> great.
> > >
> > > For android, the default config.xml file is bundled with the platform
> > > framework itself and not as part of the project template.  I assume
> this
> > is
> > > not easy to fix, otherwise we would have made the change already?
> > >
> > > Since the <access> tag is additive (i.e. cannot just override it by
> > > appending), there is no way to remove that default without reaching in
> > and
> > > editing cordova-android/framework/res/xml/config.xml file directly
> > (either
> > > with a custom post-platform-add hook to run sed, or by forking
> > > cordova-android to change the default, both shitty options imho).
> > >
> > > Any suggestions on how to fix this?
> > >
> > > I was hoping to propose that we move the tag out of all the platform
> > > templates and instead add it to the hello-world app template -- but I
> > think
> > > that won't work well with the platform-scripts workflow since that flow
> > > doesn't use an application level config.xml at all right now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Second, related issue: cordova-cli bundles a default application
> > config.xml
> > > file, which also includes <access origin="*"/>.  I think this is just
> > > unnecessary and should be removed.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Michal
> > >
> > > p.s. as an aside, I thought we were moving the default platform
> > config.xml
> > > out into a file called "defaults.xml"?  It seems only the good folks at
> > > blackberry have done that so far..
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to