- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 23:14:45 +1000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 11:00, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I am however more worried about that only having a request() and a
> release() function means that pages that contain multiple independent
> subsystems will have to make sure that they don't stomp on each
> other's locks. Simply counting request() calls vs. release() calls
> helps, but doesn't fully solve the problem. It's very easy to
> accidentally call release too many times, in response to some UI
> action for example.
>
> An alternative design would be something like
>
> x = new WakeLock("display");
> x.request();
> x.release();
>
> Extra calls of either request() or release() are ignored, but pages
> can create any number of WakeLocks of the same type.
It seems that we already discussed using an object and this solution was
dismissed because of this model being error-prone. It's also not clear
how this solution is superior than the current solution [1] with regards
to multiple releases or requests. In [1], if you call .request() or
.release() multiple time, the promise reacts appropriately. Typically,
if you try to release() an un-hold lock, it will reject the promise. Is
that something you are not satisfied with?
[1] http://w3c.github.io/wake-lock/ ?
-- Mounir
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 13:15:16 UTC