Re: [Task Scheduler] scheduling flexibility

I would put it the way, that the app might know, but the majority will not
care and not set any value (or set the wrong one), which disallows us from
doing smart optimizations.

In the case the user don't know or don't care, it should default to
something that we can optimize smartly... Basically you need to opt-out of
the optimization is you really need to, not opt-in to one, because that
just rarely happens (judging from the rest of the web and scrolling
optimizations etc).

Just define that the events might not be totally precise due to batching,
but if they need to be the user can say so, but that might negatively
affect battery usage. Just like the geolocation API has a way to opt-in to
more precise data.

Kenneth


On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You really want it the other way around. Users should tell when they
> don't
> > tolerate such a delay.
>
> That is a subset, so it is the same way, not the other way around :).
>
> >
> > You can not expect the users to do the right thing, so let's make the
> > default what makes the most sense for the platform.
>
> The app knows what kind of delays it can work with, the platform does
> not know it, so we need a way the app tell it. On the other hand, it
> is good if the app could find what the user agent has decided.
>
> Whichever way - I trust Chris on this :).
>
> Regards,
> Zoltan
>
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Michael van Ouwerkerk
> >> <mvanouwerkerk@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > How do people feel about allowing for scheduling flexibility in the
> Task
> >> > Scheduler API? The goal of this feature would be to save battery
> power.
> >> > If
> >> > the system has flexibility about when to precisely run a task, it
> could
> >> > batch multiple tasks together, or only run tasks when the device is
> >> > awake.
> >> > This way, we could avoid waking up devices too frequently.
> >> >
> >> > Some use cases require precise scheduling e.g. an alarm in the
> morning,
> >> > or a
> >> > cooking timer. But there are many tasks that are much less time
> >> > sensitive,
> >> > these could be scheduled flexibly e.g. syncing a news feed or
> >> > auto-updating
> >> > to a new version.
> >> >
> >> > Any comments? My apologies if this issue has been discussed
> previously.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Michael van Ouwerkerk
> >> >
> >>
> >> Valid point. In my view, the use case could be formulated like this:
> >> - a given platform or device policy / setting may support "scheduling
> >> heartbeat" (similar to IP heartbeat)
> >> - applications should have means to tell the user agent if they can
> >> tolerate small delays (and how much. in terms of lower bound, desired,
> >> upper bound) in task scheduling, let's call this "request"
> >> - the user agent should have means to tell the application the
> >> "response" about whether it can respect the request or not, or if it
> >> can respect it with changes in requested max delay. The app can then
> >> adapt to this.
> >>
> >> That would mean introducing a function call (with the range expressed
> >> as parameters), and a new event (with actual max delay as parameter).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Zoltan
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> > Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
> > Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
>



-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆