- From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:47:55 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Is now a good time to take the WakeLock thread to the DAP public list? ( public-device-apis@w3.org ) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia @fjhirsch On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > > On August 25, 2014 at 2:14:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky (bzbarsky@mit.edu) wrote: >> On 8/25/14, 1:17 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: >>> I'm supportive of this idea. I'd suggest starting with input.value >> >> This one is actually extra-fun from a performance standpoint. > > As device APIs seem to be well-suited to using an observable pattern (I'm thinking of things like the Battery API - though I'm not suggesting we change that API), I'm wondering if we can maybe discuss the Wake Lock API that a few of us are interested in standardizing? > > At a very basic level, the problem space is as follows: > > 1. The Wake Lock API depends on IPC: both in requesting the lock and getting notified by the underlying OS that it cannot honour a lock (wake lock is released when battery is critical, for example). Hence, setting a wake lock is an async operation, but to script it can appear sync. > > 2. The API should probably be restricted to the top-level browsing context (don't want random advertisements in an iframe keeping the screen on, for example). As far as observing is concerned, I would guess this one doesn't matter - just trying to point out that setting behaviour is contextual. > > 3. Should such an API be an extension to Document or similar DOM interfaces? or should it be its own interface? I guess my question is: do you foresee performance implications to adding these kinds of APIs to things that are somewhat dynamic and already contain a bunch of (currently non-observable) attributes, like the Document object has. I imagine this makes no difference, but thought I'd ask just in case. > > > ``` > document.keepScreenOn = true; > ``` > > Versus, say: > > ``` > window.WakeLock.keepScreenOn = true; > ``` > > Your guidance would be much appreciated. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 14:49:27 UTC