- 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