On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Brett Cornwall
<brettcornwall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, all that is written in the spec is:
"A compliant player should also keep playing if you close its
window while it is playing; exit if you close its window while it
is not playing; and remember exact state across sessions, so that
after exit and relaunch it is as if the player had never exited."
I honestly don't see the benefit in such an action other than
conserving RAM. But that's the purpose of swap, isn't it? If RAM
were the reason for this behavior then it's putting more headache
and CPU usage on those that can handle lots of programs in order to
reimplement an already-existing functionality dedicated to those
that run out of resources. I'm curious for an explanation as I just
don't understand the motivation. Surely getting all these players to
comply with preserving their exact state is going to take some time
to acoomplish. Why spend all the resources on something so
unexplained and seemingly trivial?
People turn their computers off from time to time. You cannot expect everyone to have his/her computer running (or, at least suspended) day and night in an endless session. As far as I'm concerned, "perfect" state saving is the right behavior for all applications, not only for music players. I want to be able to end my session at any time and for whatever reason I may have, without having to expend 10 minutes trying to restore the my session state afterwards.