- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:24:39 +0000
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mounir@lamouri.fr] > I don't think the requestFoo() model works very well for battery. The API is defined in a way that if you did not get access to the battery for the reasons listed above, we still RECOMMEND getBattery() to return a BatteryManager with default values. Yes, I guess I was not clear. My original post was mainly about questioning whether this is a good recommendation, instead of forcing authors to handle the failure path. Thus "I realize that the default values idea might have been a result of a previous discussion that I missed, and would be happy to be pointed toward it." The name is not the important part; indeed for back-compat and reduced churn I might imagine we want to keep getBattery(). All that said, it's still worrying that the spec has RECOMMENDations instead of MUSTs for what seems like a key requirement for interop. Whichever is decided---default dummy battery, or failure path---IMO the spec should mandate one (and certainly not RECOMMEND omitting getBattery entirely).
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 12:25:11 UTC