Hey Jas: As I noted to you recently, I've finally gotten the JS feature loader CL out. It's here: http://codereview.appspot.com/143046
The impact this would have on your CL is that it allows for introduction of syntax that would include tamings.js only when feature=caja is included (that, in turn, will require making some kind of gadget processing context available to rewriters et al). The underlying design question I have - not necessarily for this CL - is whether "feature=caja is included somewhere in the Gadget feature dependency tree" will always be equivalent to "Gadget is cajoled". In particular, will this be true for cajoled-inlined content? I know we've discussed various ideas around this: <Content type="caja">, <Content type="html" cajolable="true">, <Require feature="caja">, or simply [ container chooses whether or not to cajole, no syntax in gadget ]. Thoughts on this? In the interim, I don't want to hold you up too much, and feel that including these tamings should be OK even though it's unnecessary out of Caja context. Others have an opinion? --j On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Snapshot. > > > On 2009/10/21 19:03:23, jasvir wrote: > >> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/48 >> File features/src/main/javascript/features/caja/taming.js (right): >> > > http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/48#newcode105 >> Line 105: var tamings___ = tamings___ || []; >> This works for now. Its vulnerable to a feature you don't trust >> > resetting this > >> array entirely to prevent it from getting exposed to a gadget but if >> > you have a > >> feature you don't trust, it can do anything anyways. >> > > On 2009/10/20 21:53:57, johnfargo wrote: >> > Not that it's a big deal in this case, but maybe it should be. This >> > is one of > >> a >> > few use cases I've seen arise that call for a clearer representation >> > of the > >> > feature dependency tree. >> > > http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/46 >> File features/src/main/javascript/features/flash/taming.js (right): >> > > http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/46#newcode1 >> Line 1: /* >> On 2009/10/20 21:53:57, johnfargo wrote: >> > Missing a corresponding feature.xml update for flash. >> > > Done. >> > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/135051 >
