cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Android: activityResultKeepRunning
Date Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:03:10 GMT
Created an issue with proposed changes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-7947. Let's move discussion there.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
wrote:

> I don't think there's even been an issue opened for it. Seems like maybe
> the proper thing to do here though, is to move the pause/resumeTimers logic
> into CordovaActivity since they apply to all webviews.
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, what's going on with this? Did this land in any release of Cordova?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Archana Naik <naik.archana@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> We have tested this behavior and in fact AmazonWebView which was and is
>> >> always based on chromium, we recommend to pause/resume timers in order
>> to
>> >> manage resources.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So, it works on the Amazon Chromium build?
>> >
>> > The more things change, the more they stay the same! We should probably
>> > adopt the changes that Andrew did, and the patch from Crosswalk, since
>> I'd
>> > rather have it be our problem than it being all over the place.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@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 <
>> iclelland@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 <
>> >> > kant2002@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 <agrieve@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
<
>> >> tommy@devgeeks.org
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >> > > > Biiiiig -1 for breaking current background
behaviour.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > Or am I misunderstanding?
>> >> > >> > > > On 11 Sep 2014 10:34, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@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 <
>> >> > >> agrieve@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" <
>> >> mmocny@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 <
>> >> > bowserj@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 <
>> >> > >> > > >> agrieve@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 <
>> >> > >> > > bowserj@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 <
>> >> > >> > > >> > agrieve@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 <
>> >> > >> > > >> > agrieve@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?
>> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message