Re: RFC: GtkPreview library

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 :-)


On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:

On 25 January 2015 at 13:31, Philip Withnall <philip 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.


[ ] ebassi []

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]