We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I saw these ipc channels are used by @electron/remote in the source:
@electron/remote
REMOTE_BROWSER_WRONG_CONTEXT_ERROR REMOTE_BROWSER_REQUIRE REMOTE_BROWSER_GET_BUILTIN REMOTE_BROWSER_GET_GLOBAL REMOTE_BROWSER_GET_CURRENT_WINDOW REMOTE_BROWSER_GET_CURRENT_WEB_CONTENTS REMOTE_BROWSER_CONSTRUCTOR REMOTE_BROWSER_FUNCTION_CALL REMOTE_BROWSER_MEMBER_CONSTRUCTOR REMOTE_BROWSER_MEMBER_CALL REMOTE_BROWSER_MEMBER_SET REMOTE_BROWSER_MEMBER_GET REMOTE_BROWSER_DEREFERENCE REMOTE_BROWSER_CONTEXT_RELEASE
I'm not sure if here are other things like these, which is not written in doc, but could cause bugs that hard to happen and harder to debug.
Add things like these to doc is best. Then the userland won't think any ipc string is usable any more.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think this conflict won't happen...who will use these strings?
Sorry, something went wrong.
I think this is like the occupancy of global variables in daily programming, which cannot be ignored because of the low probability.
No branches or pull requests
I saw these ipc channels are used by
@electron/remote
in the source:I'm not sure if here are other things like these, which is not written in doc, but could cause bugs that hard to happen and harder to debug.
Add things like these to doc is best. Then the userland won't think any ipc string is usable any more.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: