- From: Zoltan Kis via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:47:26 +0000
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
To me this seems not so much a sensor classification criterion than a
reporting policy on the sensor side.
> do all platforms which make the distinction are consistent across
sensors?
IMO it may not be consistent across all platforms for a given sensor,
since it may depend on many things, including platform specific ones.
> are some sensors exposed both ways on the same platform?
It may well be exposed in both ways instance by instance, depending
where are they installed for what purpose.
> how do we express that in JS? DiscreteSensor and ContinuousSensor
that both inherit from Sensor?
> onchange (discrete) vs. ondata (continuous) events?
I think we should not explicitly classify sensors based on this, but
have the policy on each sensor instead. A readonly property with a
dictionary, and policy setters. For instance:
```javascript
enum SensorDataReportingPolicy { // find a better name
"periodic", "threshold", "in-range", "out-of-range"
};
```
```Sensor``` and ```SensorOptions``` already support "periodic" and
"threshold", perhaps that's all you need for now. Then extend
SensorOptions and Sensor to expose the policy:
```
partial dictionary SensorOptions {
SensorDataReportingPolicy policy;
};
partial interface Sensor {
Promise<void> setDataReportingPolicy(SensorDataReportingPolicy
policy);
};
```
Of course, instead ```Promise<void>``` you could have ```void```, or
just a settable attribute:
```
partial interface Sensor {
attribute SensorDataReportingPolicy policy;
};
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by zolkis
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/75#issuecomment-172766745 using
your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 07:47:34 UTC