- From: Tobie Langel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:03:55 +0000
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Thank you all so much for this fantastic input. Please keep it coming. Here's what I'm hearing so far: * Consensus that ["EventTarget is a horrible interface"][1], yet… [shipping][2]. * Interest to build on top of [Observables][3] and/or [Iterators][4], yet [concern about the ETA of both APIs][5], and [uncertainty as to whether such APIs enable real world use cases][6]. * The [value of real use cases and in-the-field experience][7] brought by [Johnny-Five][8]. (As a sidenote, I intend do copy pretty much verbatim the use cases into the spec itself.) * The [debate][7] between high level APIs vs. lower level ones and pushing vs. pulling (polling). My overall feeling is that the current, `EventTarget`-based Sensor API proposition is what we should go with. The `EventTarget` dependency is annoying but unavoidable at present. I also tend to think that any successful deployment of `Observables` will need to come equipped with a story on how to migrate `EventTarget`-based APIs which we'll be able to hop on. That said, it might be worthwhile to think about the underlying primitives (e.g. the ones that do the actual polling) and possibly expose them in the spirit of the [Extensible Web Manifesto][9]. [1]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-108036017 [2]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-107224935 [3]: https://github.com/zenparsing/es-observable [4]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-107121710 [5]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-108036017 [6]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-108081529 [7]: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-108038846 [8]: https://github.com/rwaldron/johnny-five [9]: https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/ -- GitHub Notif of comment by tobie See https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/21#issuecomment-108973312
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2015 17:03:57 UTC