- From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:39:46 +0100
- To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "public-device-status@w3.org" <public-device-status@w3.org>
>> is active at a time and any subsequent vibrate() invocation will cancel >>the pre-existing operation, Well, vibration implementation at the native layer usually does not work in that way. There is a vibration request queue that guarantees that vibration requests are satisfied for the requested times (but without overlapping). Imagine I have an app with two iframes and from the two iframes I'm requesting vibration in overlapping time instants. With your approach what it would happen is that one will stop the vibration from the other which will incorrect. best El 03/11/11 04:59, "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> escribió: >On 1.11.2011, at 16.34, ext JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > >> vibrate(0) means no vibration. >> >> In addition probably you are going to need something to indicate what >> vibration you want to cancel as there can be more than one pending >> vibration request > >There's no concept of pending vibration request in the current draft. In >other words, only one vibration operation is active at a time and any >subsequent vibrate() invocation will cancel the pre-existing operation, >if any. See the tests 3 and 4a: > > https://bug679966.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=567875 > >Do you have a use case in mind for pending vibration requests? > >-Anssi Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 04:40:36 UTC