Hi, I periodically check how Crosswalk engine developed and seen that they land functionality which you are discussing today/yesterday https://github.com/crosswalk-project/crosswalk-cordova-android/pull/136
Maybe there make sense keep compatibility with them too. Or at least if timers would be paused, this should be documented. Would be good if alternative engines have compatible lifecycle as much as possible. Best regargs, Andrey Kurdyumov 2014-09-12 0:58 GMT+06:00 Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>: > I guess I can see the value of providing a safety option for "pause my > app in the background", but in general I think it's better practice to > not pause forcefully, and instead have apps listen to the "pause" > event, and stop battery-draining activity there instead. So... let's > keep the option in, and keep it off by default. > > Joe / Tommy - not sure from your comments as to whether they were > directed at the idea of removing the option completely, or to the > patch I sent that gets rid of unconditionally pausing timers during > startActivityForResult flows. Really can't see why you'd want that, > and I think it would just cause subtle bugs. > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Tommy Williams <to...@devgeeks.org> > wrote: > > Biiiiig -1 for breaking current background behaviour. > > > > Or am I misunderstanding? > > On 11 Sep 2014 10:34, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Pausing timers means that the JS isn't running in the background at all. > >> This now means that the Javascript is running constantly, regardless of > >> whether it's an event. This means that setInterval is still running. > This > >> could break people's applications. > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Getting off track here a bit. > >> > > >> > Here's what I'm suggesting with my original email: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/agrieve/cordova-android/compare/apache:4.0.x...no_disable_timers?expand=1 > >> > > >> > I was further asking if there was any use in ever pausing timers (aka, > >> > removing the KeepRunning preference). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> > > I consider 4 a release branch. Merge in tested green lit code to > your > >> > > hearts desire but 4.0 is definitely not a feature. It should be > always > >> > in a > >> > > releasable state. > >> > > On Sep 10, 2014 1:53 PM, "Michal Mocny" <mmo...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Question is, do you consider the fact that bugs are introduced & > >> > discovered > >> > >> (possibly with pain) a sign that the system is broken, or a sign > that > >> > the > >> > >> system is working? > >> > >> > >> > >> I sense that Andrew worries that if work has to land on a feature > >> > branch of > >> > >> this feature branch, it won't get eyeballs. > >> > >> > >> > >> I sense that Joe worries that if we land everything/anything in > >> > Android-4.0 > >> > >> it will become unstable, as mistakes are prone to happen (see i.e. > >> > recent > >> > >> issue with black background). > >> > >> > >> > >> Personally, I prefer eyeballs and instability to delayed discovery > >> and a > >> > >> sense of stability, especially for a feature branch like > Android-4.0. > >> > >> There are workarounds for demos (i.e. create your own branch off > of a > >> > >> known working version), but its not as easy to solve the eyeball > >> > problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> -Michal > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > I think this needs to be thought through more, and I'm extremely > >> wary > >> > >> when > >> > >> > you say this is a single commit, especially based on the last > couple > >> > of > >> > >> > months and how long it took 3.6 to go through. Given that we > have > >> > people > >> > >> > travelling halfway across the planet who intend to show people > their > >> > work > >> > >> > in less than two weeks, I would definitely like it if you were to > >> put > >> > >> this > >> > >> > in your own branch for testing. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> agri...@chromium.org > >> > > > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I don't think there'd be much value in that. It'll be a single > >> > commit > >> > >> > > that almost entirely just deletes lines. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > What do you think about the never auto-pausing on > backgrounding? > >> or > >> > >> > > about auto-pausing when intent sending? > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joe Bowser < > bows...@gmail.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > > Can you put this on its own branch before it lands in 4.0.x? > >> > That'd > >> > >> be > >> > >> > > > awesome! > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> > agri...@chromium.org> > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> For cordova-android 4.0, I'd like to go as far as just > deleting > >> > the > >> > >> > > >> "KeepRunning" <preference>. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> Apps get a "pause" event when they are backgrounded, and > they > >> > can do > >> > >> > > >> any pause-type logic there (e.g. unlisten to accelerometer > >> > events or > >> > >> > > >> pausing audio). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> Any strong objections? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> > agri...@chromium.org > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Commit description: If multitasking is turned on > >> > >> (keepRunning=true), > >> > >> > > >> > then temporarily disable it when starting a new activity > that > >> > >> > returns > >> > >> > > >> > a result - such as camera. > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/26adfb634651196106fb5b66f15eecb535a06d82 > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Bryce / anyone - clues as to *why* we'd want to disable JS > >> > timers > >> > >> > when > >> > >> > > >> > firing off an intent? > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
