- From: Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:21:58 -0400
- To: Ilya Bogdanovich <bogdanovichiy@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Mats Wichmann <m.wichmann@samsung.com>
On May 29, 2014 at 1:08:39 PM, Ilya Bogdanovich (bogdanovichiy@yandex-team.ru) wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> >
> > This could also happen with the GC-based model, as the object needs to be kept alive and
> explicitly deleted to be useful.
> >
> > this.wakeLock = screen.getWakeLock();
> >
> > function youCanSleepAgain(){
> > doSomething(); // exception thrown
> > delete this.wakeLock;
> > }
>
> That’s true, but choosing between two possible errors - "app should not dim but it does",
> and “app should dim but it doesn’t” - the second one seems more harmful to me.
Yes, I agree.
> > Anyway, the point is that there are lots of ways to manage this - and the underlying OS
> may give the user means to override allowing apps stopping the screen from going to sleep
> or dimming.
>
> I didn’t mean modal dialog, but of course browser or OS should have a chance to notify user
> of such web app behavior and allow him to reject this. And it’s better to notify him before
> the action starts, than interrupting process when OS would try to dim the screen for the
> first time.
Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure. It seems we are pretty much aligned in our thinking then.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 17:22:28 UTC