Theo,
As Jose said we already had few exchanges about this issue. On one hand
application package format is not a top priority, on the other hand
everyone agree that Widget replacement will have to be address in the
future.
At the time of Widget selection few years ago, RPM was missing some
features (e.g. a simple model to sign files in a package, declare
privileges, ...). As today most of those limitations disappeared, also
replacing Widget by RPM should not be a huge work. Everyone understand
that such a move would open the door to nice features (eg: application
store, dependencies management, .....)
Conclusion: one day AGL community will have to address this issue
Fulup
On 07/05/2019 15:41, José Bollo wrote:
On 07/05/2019 10:09, Theo BUENO via automotive-discussions wrote:
Hi everyone,
As I was reading W3C's reference for Packaged Web Applications [1]
(widgets), it came to my attention that W3C obsoleted [2][3] this
recommendation since October 2018.
Hi Theo,
Thanks for bringing attention on that fact.
I was not able to find discussions about this in the mailing list
archives or on Jira. Is this decision gonna affect AGL's Application
Framework ?
I already knew that but hadn't communicate about it because I couldn't
figure how to announce it and what to do with that low priority
information.
On my opinion, that abandon recognizes the little adoption of that
specification.
AGL uses that specification for the widgets because it is used by
Tizen. In my opinion that specification was really good. The main
feature of that specification used by AGL are the config file and the
signatures. AGL's binder also support internationalization mechanism
of that specification but I'm not sure that it is used much currently.
You asked about the implication it has on the application framework of
AGL.
First of all, as I wrote above, it is perhaps a low priority issue.
There is probably no real urgency to switch to an other format.
Switching to a new packaging has to be considered at the end.
Unfortunately, the packaging format that replace that obsolete one
doesn't look to fit the requirements of a valuable packaging system
for AGL.
My personal opinion is that afterward, it is a chance for AGL because
it will allow to switch to a best packaging format.
If you want to start a discussion on that topic, here are some
requirements:
- authoring and signing
- compressing
- configuration file
- one or more components per package
- incremental difference
- debugging support
Some of my company think that RPM are good candidates, notably because
a dependency mechanism comes natively. Some other think that tar.xz
are enough.
Best regards
José Bollo
Thanks and best regards,
Théo Bueno.
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
[2] https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/3
[3] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/65
Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration (Second
Edition) - World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C)<https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/>
Abstract. This specification updates the Widget Packaging and XML
Configuration, and addresses some errata found in the original
recommendation. It also updates the name of the specification, to be
more in vogue with industry trends towards the naming of this class
of application.. This specification standardizes a packaging format
and metadata for a class of software known commonly as ...
www.w3.org
_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
