Re: xdg-app discussions at the GNOME DX hackfest

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

Alberto Ruiz <aruiz gnome org> wrote:
...
> I would say that the logic should be exactly the opposite
...

I did say: "At the very least, careful thought needs to be given to
the implications of xdg-app for sandboxing, before the former is
released into the wild."

It seems important to examine how xdg-app and sandboxing will work together.

...
> I don't think we
> can realistically provide all the hooks that most apps need all at once and
> delaying widespread adoption of bundles because of that seems like a net
> lose. We want people using the bundling mechanism ASAP so that we can start
> getting them into the toolchain, then we can learn what kind of tooling is
> missing to get them to "upgrade" into sandboxing.

I think that somewhat depends on how you envisage making xdg-app
initially available: ie, whether initial releases will be marked as
experimental or previews, and what kind of stability guarantees will
be provided for runtimes. One of the primary goals of xdg-app is to
provide a stable application development and deployment platform,
after all. It would be a shame to give the framework a bad name
because we didn't manage expectations.

There is also a serious question about how packaged and bundled
applications could sanely coexist on the same system.

Allan