- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:56:26 +0000
- To: Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, "Marco Chen" <mchen@mozilla.com>, Wesley Johnston <wjohnston@mozilla.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Evelyn Hung <ehung@mozilla.com>
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:57, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com> wrote:
> > Jonas’ proposal 2) would give the web developer more information and control over sessions before the picker UI is shown to the user:
> >
> > 2) “There’s a second screen available that has a pre-existing resumable session.”
> >
> > p.onavailablechange = function(e) {
> > if (e.available && e.sessionAvailable) {
> > // Pre-existing session found for the same origin, get the user’s consent:
> > session = p.requestSession('http://example.org/', 'foobar', /* onlyReconnect */ true);
> > // “example.org wants to ..."
> > } else {
> > console.log('No resumable sessions found, do something else.');
> > }
> > };
> >
> > I think 2) allows easier resuming of pre-existing sessions. The names of the flags to be bikeshed :-)
>
> Each time I see a boolean flag in the parameters list I feel like having two functions instead with distinctive clear names instead. Maybe have two functions like this:
>
> partial interface NavigatorPresentation {
> PresentationSession startSession(DOMString url, DOMString sessionId);
> PresentationSession joinSession(DOMString url, DOMString sessionId);
> }
>
> Also, what do the function(s) return if the session is not established (e.g. user exits the selection UI by dismissing the popup menu or there's no existing session to join) ? An uninitialized useless session object? Or should we change the return type to a Promise that passes a session to the caller if it succeeds?
I think we can leave the sessionAvailable sugar out for now, given we should be able to address the use case with requestSession() as discussed at [1], right?
We can note in the spec we’re considering such a flag, and are looking for author feedback.
Thanks,
-Anssi
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webscreens/2014Aug/0062.html
Received on Friday, 22 August 2014 12:57:02 UTC