Re: [Task Scheduler] Repeating alarms

I don't think that is handled, but I think it would be good if we had an
answer to what should happen. Should it fire when the device is turned on
again? Should it be ignored? Does it depend on what kind of tasks/alarm?

How does this work for Android alarms?

Kenneth


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Michael van Ouwerkerk <
mvanouwerkerk@google.com> wrote:

> How is that situation currently handled for one-shot alarms?
>
> /m
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <
> kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am OK with recurring alarms, but what is supposed to happen if the
>> device is off and an alarm cannot be met?
>>
>> Kenneth
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, John Mellor <johnme@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I notice that the API only allows one-shot alarms (setTimeout style), so
>>> apps that want to run periodically (both at exact times like a recurring
>>> alarm/calendar event, and inexact times like background syncing) must
>>> schedule a new task every time their task gets started.
>>>
>>> That helps to keep the API nice and simple, but I worry that it might
>>> cause sporadic failures. Specifically, if the app crashes, gets killed, or
>>> hits an exception, in between the task starting and the app scheduling its
>>> next execution, it will never be run again (until the app is next manually
>>> launched, at which point a well-written app might check that the task is
>>> still scheduled, though many apps may neglect to do this).
>>>
>>> Two possible solutions:
>>>
>>> 1. Automatically schedule an additional task if a task crashes or gets
>>> killed. However, there's a risk that this would perform actions twice (e.g.
>>> if the background task sends an email, and we run an additional task with
>>> the same data, 2 emails might get sent); alternatively we could pass null
>>> data, but then that might confuse an app that only every schedules itself
>>> with data. So I'm not really sure this is workable.
>>>
>>> 2. Add a recurring alarm variant. It might make sense to only allow inexact
>>> alarms<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Nov/0019.html> to
>>> automatically recur; this would also allow us to simplify the API, as with
>>> inexact alarms you don't actually need to specify an interval, instead the
>>> browser will heuristically determine how often you deserve to get run (or
>>> we could allow providing a "minimum interval", which is the period of time
>>> after a given task execution during which the task should *not* be run, and
>>> after that the browser can schedule the task whenever).
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
>> Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
>> Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
>>
>
>


-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆