W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Wake Lock API

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAjjY_S3dgzEhqk-Ww-JbTx=o4st=a2fXKFmQsJF=GcxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
> On August 19, 2014 at 4:39:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalmage@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > Why is isHeld still used here? You don't need it to avoid squashing
>> someone else's lock with this design, and several people have
>> pointed out that exposing it is a footgun, as people might check it and
>> decide they don't need to request their own lock (only to be screwed when
>> the other lock releases earlier or later than they expected).
>
> It's the only authoritative source of truth. But ok, fair point about the footgun.
>
> Consider the static dropped.

I mean, you could put a non-static isHeld on any individual lock, if
you want to know whether this particular lock is held or released.  I
just don't think there's any reason to pass information around about
the global lock state, if you're not being required to use that
information for coordination purposes.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 21:05:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:22 UTC