On Thursday, July 17, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, at 01:56, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

Yes, Google Play Books will wait five minutes from the last interaction to turn 
off the screen. This is nice if you fall a sleep while reading and long enough 
for a user to read a page without having the screen dim. 


I was trying to model that problem with the API. 
> > 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.

Sorry, I was trying to say exactly what you said above. No need to keep the 
screen on when using "system", obviously. 

Ideally, we could do something like:

"display" = keep display on + system/cpu + network
"network" (wifi/cell) = system/cpu + network (screen off)
"system" = just cpu, turn off screen and radio. 

Hopefully, something like that means you don't need to pick an choose amongst 
numerous options. 

Reply via email to