W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Re: poll results

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:21:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8jUxTM=Hu9r337as36qT+UcZ-Jy-rcoYciEHvCD3jP-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On Monday, June 18, 2012, Robin Berjon wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Jun 15, 2012, at 19:38 , Adam Barth wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Only Two Implementors
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Secure Elements API         1   4   2   3   2
> > Idle API                    1   2   2   1   2
> > DNS Resolution API          1   1   2   2   1
> > Network Interface API       2   1   2   2   2
> > Resource Lock API           1   1   2   1   2
> > Serial API                  1   1   2   2   1
> > Application API             1   1   2   2   2
>
> Jonas can confirm for himself, but I think that he made a mistake in
> answering the question concerning the Application API, due to the fuzziness
> of the API's description. It corresponds to the system messaging API that
> he and Mounir have been advocating here.


If "Application API" is indeed for things like an app managing it's own
lifetime, declaring how/if to be started for incoming messages, managing
state to deal with things like being shut down due to system being low on
resources, etc, then I'm definitely interested in both speccing and
implementing such an API. Don't know if I'd be able to find editing
resources, but I'd definitely try to.

It's unclear to me how much of stuff like that is an "Application API" vs.
how much of it is simply part of the "Execution model" which seems agreed
upon by all to be included in Phase 1.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 23:21:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 June 2012 23:22:04 GMT