Fair enough, those are good points. To rephrase my last message I am not well-versed in the details of subsurfaces and how they would help in this case, so I will appreciate help to evolve my API proposal in that direction :-)
Cosimo On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi; > > On 25 January 2015 at 13:31, Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> > wrote: > > >> That's why my proposal doesn't enforce this specific design; I'm > >> definitely open to think more about how a multi-process design looks > >> like, but I wouldn't want to block until that is figured out. > > > > To me, the security and rendering architecture of this seems pretty core > > in the design, so I _would_ block on figuring it out. It doesn’t feel > > like the kind of thing which can easily be bolted on or fixed > > afterwards. > > I tend to agree; we need to start designing our API with sandboxing > and security context separation from the start, these days, otherwise > we'll have nothing but grief (in the form of API changes or, worse, > complete rewrites) down the line. > > ciao, > Emmanuele. > > -- > https://www.bassi.io > [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] >
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
