2009/11/18 Cornelius Hald <h...@icandy.de>: > I see many use cases for those policies like an incoming phone call > should work properly even while some app is doing heavy number > crunching. > > However rotation is a different thing. I mean what's the objective? The > rotation animation should be smooth even if something uses a lot of > processing time? Fair enough. But pausing the _foreground_ application > is hardly the solution. How about pausing all _background_ applications? > > The foreground application is the only application interested in the > rotation. Therefore it already specifies explicitly that it can rotate. > If I now write an application it's my duty to give the CPU some time > while rotating. If I don't do this, _my_ application looks shitty and > everyone will tell me. It's not the platform that gets a bad reputation, > it's my app. > > So, if anything should get paused, it's all applications which are not > white listed and which are not in the foreground. > > If I somehow missed the point, please tell me :) > > Cheers! > Conny >
How dare you steal my words out of my hands before I even write them! No, I miss the point as well.. Aniello > > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:07 +0200, Eero Tamminen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> ext Eugene Antimirov wrote: >> >> It handles also audio policies and tries to make sure that you get >> >> your phone calls when the device is heavily loaded and some other >> >> minor things. >> > >> > Just to know. >> > >> > I see now this `ohmd` process in my 41-10. I did not get it, was this >> > daemon improved or made worse in new firmware released lately? >> >> Better for known (pre-installed) applications, worse for unknown >> applications. The reason for this is that unknown applications have >> unknown resource usage so system policy treats them with more care. >> >> >> It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Changing the policy is slow >> iterative work requiring lots of testing that the policy change doesn't >> significantly worsen other use-cases in some situations (e.g. for things >> for which there are certain certification & legal requirements). >> >> Developers can now experiment and report/discuss things which they would >> like policy to handle better (for certain classes of 3rd applications >> and their use-cases). I.e. in regards to 3rd party applications, the >> policies could be considered work-in-progress. >> >> >> Things that could potentially be done for 3rd party applications >> policy handling: >> >> - Default policy is improved in regards to unknown processes. >> It's yet unknown whether this can be done well enough without >> sacrificing the known functionality, that's why feedback is needed >> on the behavior of 3rd party application use-cases. >> >> - Applications themselves specify the required policy on install. >> This is extra work for apps, and requires extensive testing to >> guarantee that the policy they choose is good match for >> the application in all cases. (application doesn't leak or >> otherwise hog resources) >> >> - Some way for user to specify per-application policy. >> I'm sure power-users would like that... :-) >> >> >> - Eero >> _______________________________________________ >> maemo-developers mailing list >> maemo-developers@maemo.org >> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers > > _______________________________________________ > maemo-developers mailing list > maemo-developers@maemo.org > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers > -- anidel Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
