W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis-log@w3.org > May 2019

Re: [wake-lock] request(): Order for permission and other checks (#202)

From: Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 11:58:00 +0000
To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-491263383-1557489479-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> What tradeoffs did you consider?

I don't think we've put a lot of thought into this lately. Feature-policy integration was done years ago in #107 to fix #51, and I think we've just moved it around as the spec changed. 

In the current version of the spec we do feature-policy checking in `WakeLock`'s constructor and `AbortSignal` is handled separately in `WakeLock.request()`, but as we move towards making the `WakeLock` interface only have a couple of static methods and no longer constructible they all need to be performed in the same method. The draft in #201 continues to do the feature-policy bits first, FWIW.

GitHub Notification of comment by rakuco
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/202#issuecomment-491263383 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 May 2019 11:58:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 4 July 2022 12:47:56 UTC