- From: Chris Prince <cprince@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:11:20 -0700
- To: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Aaron Boodman" <aa@google.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, timeless@gmail.com, public-geolocation@w3c.org, "Nick Brachet" <nbrachet@skyhookwireless.com>
Wouldn't this mean that, effectively, sites can never simply have:
// [code that uses lastPosition]
And instead, every site would need to include:
if (lastPosition) {
// [code that uses lastPosition]
} else {
getPosition()
// asynchronously call [code that uses lastPosition]
}
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the lastPosition attribute, I have gotten some feedback from UX people
>>> that dialog a modal permission dialog for this synchronous API is not
>>> ideal.
>>> I hate to do this, but could we work through the use case for this again.
>>> Is it simply to avoid the cost of an asynchronous callback?
>>
>> Yes, it is to be able to show something immediately in the case where
>> you have an old value from a previous call to the API.
>>
>> Perhaps the implementation could just return null in the case where
>> permission has not been granted to that origin yet?
>
>
> That means it will only return an non-null position if the system has a
> location available, and permission has been granted (and remembered)
> previously?
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 22:12:08 UTC