Re: [battery] ISSUE-114

On 08/17/2011 04:15 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 juillet 2011 à 17:27 +0200, Francois Daoust a écrit :
>>> I said I'd come up with some text to address ISSUE-114 during the
>> F2F: "Battery spec should note relative ordering of battery low versus
>> battery critical in terms of criticality". Further discussions during
>> the F2F concluded that we'd drop batterylow and batterycritical events
>> and add something like a "status" attribute that can take the values
>> "ok", "low", or "critical".
> The problem that I see with that approach is that you can't register to
> get only "critical" battery events.
> This means that if you're only interested in the "critical" state, you
> would end up getting a lot more events than you need (and thus
> ironically, drain the battery more than you need).

How much more is a "lot more" though? It seems we're talking about a hundred events or so that would get fired over a period of several hours. Even if it's within an hour, that does not sound like a lot of overhead.


Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 20:10:44 UTC