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

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Wake Lock API

From: Ilya Bogdanovich <bogdanovichiy@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:30:27 +0400
Message-Id: <F74FBBF8-899C-4C1F-8803-32BF5E5EF03B@yandex-team.ru>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, at 01:56, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, at 05:21, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > > 
> > > I do not think we should have this timeout option. That sounds like a
> > > very week use case and something fairly easy to do with the tools the
> > > platform already provides. The argument to support this feature in the
> > > github issue was that it will prevent developers to forget releasing the
> > > lock but I have a hard time believing that developers forgetting to
> > > release a lock would use a timeout that is probably more painful and
> > > error-prone.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion. My concern was mostly about developers
> > having to watch for a whole bunch of different interaction queues (touch
> > events, mouse events, focus events, orientation-change events, etc.) in
> > order to release the lock at the right time. 
> 
> Do you have specific UC? The basic UC I have in mind (reading a book,
> watching a video, playing a game) would not use a timeout.
I think books UC is a good one - you donít need wake lock to be kept infinitely, you only need it to be active for 2-5 minutes, depending on how fast you read. Then you interact with screen, turning the page.
> 
> > > > ### Check if lock is already set 
> > > > It might be useful to also have a way of checking if a lock is already
> > > > set: 
> > > > 
> > > > `` 
> > > > readonly attribute WakeLockType? lockType 
> > > > ``` 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You might want something like:
> > > partial interface WakeLock {
> > > readonly attribute WakeLockType[] currentLocks;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > Given that there can be multiple locks applying at the same time.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise, the proposal sounds good to me.
> > Could be... I was thinking that the locks are kinda like a fallback
> > chain. That is, if you have the "screen" you also have "system". If you
> > lose "screen" (notified via an event), you request "system" before the
> > device goes to sleep. If it's not possible to do things in that order,
> > then yes: we would need to return a list of the current locks. 
> > 
> > Question remains if there are other kinds of locks that we might need.
> > For example, Firefox OS has "wifi" as a lock type. I'm assuming that
> > their model keeps the "cpu" on, but the device can still shut down the
> > radios on a device. In the proposal, we lump "wifi" and "cpu" into
> > "system". 
> 
> Why not breaking these in different sub-systems? I can definitely
> imagine my phone having the CPU kept at 100% while the screen is off if
> it requires to do a heavy computation. Forcing the screen to stay on
> while doing that would be a waste of battery.
I think Marcos meant that keeping the screen leads to keeping cpu, but not vice versa.
> 
> ó Mounir

Thanks,
Ilya
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 12:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:21 UTC