W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [runtime] Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal

From: Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:47:30 +0200
Message-id: <51CD3182.80809@samsung.com>
To: public-sysapps@w3.org

On 2013-06-27 22:23, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-06-27 03:56, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> However applyUpdate() is something that probably possibly shouldn't
>>> exist at all (other than internally in the runtime implementation). At
>>> least in FirefoxOS we haven't implemented support for having multiple
>>> versions of an app installed at the same time. Because of that it's
>>> important that an update isn't applied as long as the app is running.
>>> And so applyUpdate() is important that it's only called when it's
>>> guaranteed that the app isn't running. Something which can't be
>>> guaranteed as long as the applyUpdate() function is exposed.
>> I don't understand how it is a problem that an application is running during an update? Isn't it the "industy standard" to terminate an app before an update takes place (or make a user terminate it beforehand). Applications can detect being shut down (via the onterminate handler) at which point they do all the stuff that they would if the user shut them down manually or if the system decided to close them (Android does something like that).
> I think the UA should at least allow the update to be deferred for later if the user so prefers. As currently written, the algorithm will simply "Stop application from running if it is currently running" without asking the user if it is a good time to do so.
> For example, I wouldn't be too happy if my browser would close itself without asking me to update itself while I'm working with it.

Well I would stop using any software that does things like that. Having 
that in mind, have you ever seen an app store application that downloads 
updates in the background and stops running apps without user knowingly 
allowing that?

> Should we keep applyUpdate(), I suggest we tune the normative language to make it possible to defer the update for later. When the app is launched the next time, the update would be installed.

An app store application is capable of checking if an application is 
currently running (Application.state), so it may choose to defer 
installation. I think the change you are proposing here is not necessary 
to build a good app store application and provide good UX. On the other 
hand it sounds reasonable to allow the UA to make that choice.

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 06:48:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:13 UTC