On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > After testing this again for sanity, we should probably kill this option. > I don't like it (in fact I hate it), but resumeTimers doesn't actually > resume the timers on KitKat, and since other browsers may not even support > this, we have to add a bunch of buggy Javascript that will be prone to > breaking instead of buggy Chromium code that's prone to breaking.
Which part did you test (what do you mean by "this")? I've not seen resumeTimers() fail to work. > > I still wish someone other than me actually bothered testing this and > showing what they had. > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> The patch that they applied was actually taken from the >> Cordova-crosswalk-engine plugin, so in this case, they're keeping up with >> us :) >> >> And yeah, once we get this all sorted out, it should be documented. >> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Andrey Kurdumov <kant2...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > 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? >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
