Re: Review of Sensor API Specification 09 April 2012

On Wednesday, 11 April 2012 at 22:45, Tran, Dzung D wrote:

>  
> > I think Sensors should manage themselves….
>  
> [Tran] What do you mean by this?
In my other email, I proposed:  

[[
The request and the connection should be the same thing.   

var mySensor = new Sensor('temperature');   
mySensor.onerror = function (){}
mySensor.onwateva = function (){}   
   
]]  

That way, everything is more integrated. I'm not 100% that the above is right… but I feel the whole design of the API could be more unified. The whole talk of Managers, Connections, etc. in the current spec is overly complicated, IMO. As a dev, I just want too know:  

1. what sensors do you have for me?  
2. how do I access (or instantiate) one?  

Adding the whole language of a "connection" implies that I can "disconnect", etc. For me, it's easier to just think in terms of discardable object references.  

  
> > Looking further at the spec, I see that almost all the issues I raised in my previous email are still present > in this version. I would appreciate if you could go over my previous feedback and just delete things that don't apply any more (it saves me doing the same review again):
> >  
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Mar/0094.html
>  
> [Tran] Ok, fair enough - I will look at this further.
Much appreciated.

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 09:32:06 UTC