W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Widget instances and widget invocations

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:04:39 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670905010904n1733ac0g5809e80f20992b3a@mail.gmail.com>
To: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:54 PM, mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>  a) the UA has somehow allowed me to pick which instance I run, I get back
>> what I put for the right instance
>>  b) the UA has become confused, I get both values, or something broken, or
>> nothing
>>  c) the UA has a single origin mapped to my widget, I get the last write
>
> I would also add as a variant of a) (which is probalby more realistic) is
> that
> When you kill widget 1 it asks you if you want to save your data : Y1/N1
> When you kill widget 2 it asks you if you want to save your data : Y2/N2
> Then you will have Y1/Y2 --> data of 2 ; Y1/N2 --> data of 1; N1/Y2 --> data
> of 2 ; N1/N2 --> previous data (or default if it was the first invocation
> ever)
> Then the UI may propose to the user to always save the preference and then
> you will get c) behaviour
> My two cents

I think the only way to "kill" a widget should be to delete it.  So
the options are:

1. clone last instance's storage values (which may be bad, if the data
is crashing the widget)
2. take fresh values from from the config doc... might need something
in the preference element to force a reset of a value on each
instantiation.

Marcos



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 16:05:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT