third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/sensor/SensorReadingEvent.idl - Issue 1942663003: [sensors]: Introduce the Generic Sensor API.

Side by Side Diff

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Side by Side Diff: third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/sensor/SensorReadingEvent.idl

Issue 1942663003: [sensors]: Introduce the Generic Sensor API. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: rebase + remove state from global interface listing Created 4 years, 7 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

« third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/sensor/SensorReading.idl ('K') | « third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/sensor/SensorReadingEvent.cpp ('k') | third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/sensor/SensorReadingEventInit.idl » ('j') | tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 // Copyright 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.

	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

	4

	5 // Specification at:

	6 // https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#sensorreadingevent

	7

	8 [ RuntimeEnabled=Sensor,

	9 Constructor(DOMString type, SensorReadingEventInit eventInitDict)]

	10 interface SensorReadingEvent : Event {

	11 readonly attribute SensorReading reading;
	timvolodine 2016/05/06 17:04:30 is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent and SensorReading? would SensorReadingEvent be sufficient? riju_ 2016/05/12 14:12:46 Spec issue : https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues Show quoted text On 2016/05/06 17:04:30, timvolodine wrote: > is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent and SensorReading? would > SensorReadingEvent be sufficient? Spec issue : https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/103 timvolodine 2016/05/17 17:44:39 yeah may be possible to drop the reading here.. wo Show quoted text On 2016/05/12 14:12:46, riju_ wrote: > On 2016/05/06 17:04:30, timvolodine wrote: > > is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent and SensorReading? would > > SensorReadingEvent be sufficient? > > Spec issue : https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/103 yeah may be possible to drop the reading here.. would simplify implementation down the road quite a bit riju_ 2016/05/20 11:20:11 Can we keep this for the time being? I am working Show quoted text On 2016/05/17 17:44:39, timvolodine wrote: > On 2016/05/12 14:12:46, riju_ wrote: > > On 2016/05/06 17:04:30, timvolodine wrote: > > > is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent and SensorReading? would > > > SensorReadingEvent be sufficient? > > > > Spec issue : https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/103 > > yeah may be possible to drop the reading here.. would simplify implementation > down the road quite a bit Can we keep this for the time being? I am working with the spec authors and others to find consensus. We can change the code, when the spec changes. timvolodine 2016/05/24 15:30:35 sgtm ;) Show quoted text On 2016/05/20 11:20:11, riju_ wrote: > On 2016/05/17 17:44:39, timvolodine wrote: > > On 2016/05/12 14:12:46, riju_ wrote: > > > On 2016/05/06 17:04:30, timvolodine wrote: > > > > is there a reason to have both SensorReadingEvent and SensorReading? would > > > > SensorReadingEvent be sufficient? > > > > > > Spec issue : https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/103 > > > > yeah may be possible to drop the reading here.. would simplify implementation > > down the road quite a bit > > Can we keep this for the time being? > I am working with the spec authors and others to find consensus. > We can change the code, when the spec changes. sgtm ;)
	12 };

OLD	NEW