20,741
edits
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)
Revision as of 09:44, 9 October 2016
, 9 October 2016→Concerns
| Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
== Concerns == | == Concerns == | ||
As discussed at https://wiki.python.org/moin/SandboxedPython , it's hard to embed Python without giving the scripts it runs full access to your system; hence, I wouldn't make this available to aircraft/scenery. (Nasal avoids this security problem by having its I/O functions only allow access to a limited range of files.) It could still be good to have available for local experimentation, but should be clearly labelled as insecure.<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34788309/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] A FGPythonSys implementation: The embedded | |||
Python interpreter as a FlightGear subsystem. </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Rebecca N. Palmer </nowiki> | |||
|date = Jan 22nd, 2016 | |||
|added = Jan 22nd, 2016 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
It is hard to see a benefit having a binary integration of Python in the flightgear core. Using python to get/set properties and run fg-commands is already possible without any c++ integration.<ref>{{cite web | It is hard to see a benefit having a binary integration of Python in the flightgear core. Using python to get/set properties and run fg-commands is already possible without any c++ integration.<ref>{{cite web | ||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34792963/ | |url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34792963/ | ||