Hi Paul and All!
Looking at the test plan ahead I am wondering where we actually ended up after last weeks “debate”. Have we decided to refactor the API ? If so are we moving away from WebIDL ? It does have an impact on how we would implement tests.
Br
Peter Winzell
From: Paul Boyes [mailto:pb@opencar.com]
Sent: den 9 februari 2016 05:19
To: Adam Abramski; Dave Jensen; Kazuyuki Ashimura; Natasha Rooney; ted@w3.org; Crofts, Adam; Tobie Langel; Jeff Payne; 刘大鹏(鹏成); Adolph, Martin; Gavigan, Kevin; Shinjiro Urata; public-automotive@w3.org; kevron.m.rees@intel.com; Peter Winzell
Subject: Issue 72 - Getting Closure
Here is my quick attempt at summary of many of the issues raised in Issue 72:
Main Issue:
* DOM Events as opposed to or in addition to subscriptions
* ondata versus subscribe
* on change versus subscribe
AdamC’s Summary of Main Issue:
* Dedicated handlers for each property
* vehicle.trip.onaveragespeedchange
·
* I don’t believe this will work in the case of setting a specific signal. You would have to have separate attribute for set and onchange which would get confusing.
* Generic observers
* vehicle.trip.averageSpeed.onchange
·
* May create lots of edge cases
* Specific observers
* vehicle.trip.averageSpeed.onaveragespeedchange
·
* Dramatically increase the quantity of APIs on vehicle
* Existing pub sub
* Not considered web friendly
·
* Inconsistent with other web technologies
Urata-sans Summary with Pros and Cons:
https://github.com/w3c/automotive/wiki
Ancillary Issues:
* complexity of zone
* suffixing interfaces
* Vehicle versus Sensors
* Web socket or REST calls to expose vehicle data
* Units
Talk with you all tomorrow.
Paul J. Boyes
--------------------------------
Mobile: 206-276-9675
Skype: pauljboyes