ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/02/2015 08:32 AM, Thomas Voß wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, sturmflut <sturmflut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hey Thomas,
>>
>> On 02.10.2015 16:44, Thomas Voß wrote:
>>
>>> Let's make sure that we are untangling the lifecycle policy discussion
>>> we are having here from the
>>> discussion of enabling apps to prevent the device from going to deep
>>> sleep. The latter one can be solved and
>>> both you and me have been talking about the solution. With that,
>>> keeping the tracking app in the foreground is perfectly fine.
>>>
>>> Screen goes off, devices stays operational, problem solved :)
>>
Nope. That forces the user to keep the tracking app in the foreground.
That means the user can not go about using their phone in the regular
way if they want the tracking app to function.

Receive an sms, or email. Switch to reply, now you are forced to
return to the tracking app. Instead of just continuing on your way
especially if you are expecting another response soon.

Out walking, and take or make a call while continuing to walk, to
bad your tracking app doesn't support that. Forcing the user to
deal with this is not user friendly especially when the competition
does not have such restrictions.

>>
>> Wait.
>>
>> So we would then have three cases?
>>
> 
> Sure, this topic is orthogonal to the lifecycle discussion, though.
> 
Not really, it is a design decision that forces a certain tying of the
two, as your response clearly shows. The lifecycle affects what and
how an application can do some things. It forces certain design choices
and atm even forces certain user behaviors. The most common use cases
can eventually be covered by background services but it will never
cover all use cases.