3 ms·
This is incorrect. In the past apps like Photoshop have allowed plugins which differ from App Extensions by running inside the host app's process. App Extension
by thewebcount 4y ago
This is incorrect. In the past apps like Photoshop have allowed plugins which differ from App Extensions by running inside the host app's process. App Extensions are run in a separate process and don't have access to the entitlements of the host application, and can't directly access its data. This tends to mean that extensions are much better behaved than plug-ins.
- brookst 4y agoThis. It is a different technical model that produces a different user experience. These are closer to widgets than to IPC.
- Yoric 4y agoSo, basically, OS support for the kind of things that Chrome and Firefox have been doing for a while? Having been (a minor) part of the Firefox effort, that was a real pain to implement, so sounds like a very useful component.
- duped 4y agoApplications have been using out-of-process sandboxes for years. But that's not necessarily a sign of quality, since this comes with a performance cost. It's nice when extensions don't crash the host application, but the mitigations aren't free. It's interesting that Swift's stable ABI will drastically lower that cost, since you usually need some kind of serialization (although people have been using mmap to share data between host/extension process for awhile too to avoid the serialization penalty)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]