ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Oliver Grawert <ogra@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi,

Am Dienstag, den 06.10.2015, 16:45 +0200 schrieb Alexander Kinne:
> 
> On Di, Okt 6, 2015 at 1:53 , Oliver Grawert <ogra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, den 01.10.2015, 16:53 +0100 schrieb Alan Bell:
> >>  one of the particular strengths of the Ubuntu Touch UI is that you 
> >> can
> >>  see what apps are running and close the things you don't want.
> > 
> > thats not true at all ... what you see in the app-spread is just a
> > representation of apps you "started once" and didn't remove from the
> > spread by swiping it away ... it doesn't tell you at all what the 
> > state
> > of an app is that is shown in this list ... it can be just SIGSTOPed 
> > but
> > it can also be completely wiped from ram, only leaving the screenshot 
> > in
> > the spread and being started from scratch when you focus it again.
> 
> This may be sightly off topic, but I really feel this needs to be 
> thought about:
> 
> In this case what is the sense of the switcher/ app-spread

well, the concept isn't done yet ... the idea is that, from a users
perspective, you never ever need to close an app ... if it gets
suspended or killed it will save its state and take off at the point
where you left it *immediately* ...

the "save the state" as well as the "immediately" bit are still to be
resolved and i know thomas voss is working hard on this topic ...

the core rule of the ubuntu system design is that the app in foreground
can use 100% of the remaining system resources to operate (beyond what
unity or the system services running on behalf of other apps need (i.e.
your GPS tracker or music playback)) ... when the apps get killed or
suspended their backend system services are indeed kept running, but the
UI is completely gone until you re-focus it.

there are still many bits missing for the full implementation though,
which is why we have this "no background processing" discussion at
all ... in an ideal world you will not even notice the app was killed or
stopped because:

a) if it needed to go on processing something there was a guarded system
service doing it on behalf of the app.
b) it restarted fast enough that you didn't really notice it was killed
or stopped.
c) it started at exactly the point where you left it.

(note that this is pretty close to the IOS model (which shows this is
techincally possible) and is the reason that we are currently miles
better in battery life than android in the same device)

ciao
	oli

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part