W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis-log@w3.org > April 2019

Re: [wake-lock] Canceling using AbortSignal is a bit weird (#171)

From: Domenic Denicola via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:38:58 +0000
To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-483914969-1555468737-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I'm sad to see this departure from platform conventions. I also don't understand how the proposed change solves the "problem" specified in the OP. You can call `lock.abort()` after `request()` has settled. `controller.abort()` and `lock.abort()` are no different in this regard, except that `controller.abort()` has all the benefits mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/142 which have now gone missing.

I'd urge the editors to reconsider this change.

GitHub Notification of comment by domenic
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/171#issuecomment-483914969 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2019 02:39:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 April 2019 02:39:01 UTC