On 03/10/2008, at 03:50, Aaron Boodman wrote:
One other random idea. What about mixing up the param order for
parallelism with the existing timer APIs:
Timer startTimer(Function callback, double delay, bool repeating);
[...]
Which feels more familiar, but at the same timer better. Less new
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here it is:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0009.html
Thanks for writing this up, Maciej, it looks great to me.
PK
___
webkit-dev mailing
On 03/10/2008, at 19:09, Mike Belshe wrote:
I'm not opposed to any of this; and the new API is definitely
nicer. I'll bring up a devil's advocate point. One thing I hate is
the Microsoft-style smorgasboard of APIs. When you want to start a
timer, you have 6 to choose from, and I hope
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Justin Haygood [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'd say define it as a minimum precision of 1ms, but browser
manufacturers can define any precision they wish.
OK, but that only pushes the problem space outward rather than solving it.
Make CPUs 10x faster and then
Again, I'm wondering how many legitimate uses are there for short
timeouts in background tabs/windows.
In a background window:
animation
video
audio
work queues for database or other background processing
something interesting the web hasn't invented yet
To give you some context, Safari used
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:
I'm not opposed to any of this; and the new API is definitely
nicer. I'll bring up a devil's advocate point. One thing I hate is
the Microsoft-style smorgasboard of APIs. When you want to start a
timer, you have 6 to choose from, and I
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Justin Haygood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say define it as a minimum precision of 1ms, but browser
manufacturers can define any precision they wish.
OK, but that only pushes the problem space outward
Hi Geoff,
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Again, I'm wondering how many legitimate uses are there for short
timeouts in background tabs/windows.
In a background window:
animation
video
For animation and video, is it necessary even in a completely obscured
view?
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:
I'm not opposed to any of this; and the new API is definitely
nicer. I'll bring up a devil's advocate point. One thing I hate is
the Microsoft-style smorgasboard of APIs. When you want to start a
timer, you have 6 to choose from, and I
I'm going to send this along to the relevant fora (not sure if it
should be part of HTML5 or a separate Web Apps WG spec), but here's
some rough API ideas:
Ridiculously minimalist version:
void callSoon(Function callback);
- Calls the function callback with no arguments the next time
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really like the overengineered version. I like the fairly
minimalist version best, but is there anything from the
overengineered version that should be added to it?
I like the fairly minimalist version best as
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ojan Vafai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really like the overengineered version. I like the fairly
minimalist
Why double delayInSeconds and not milliseconds to stay consistent?
On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't really like the
On a separate thread, it was discussed that it is useful to support
microsecond resolution for future proofness.
-Darin
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Timothy Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Why double delayInSeconds and not milliseconds to stay consistent?
On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Ojan
On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't really like the overengineered version. I like the fairly
minimalist version best, but is
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Starts a timer that will call function callback after
delayInSeconds, which may be a fractional number of seconds.
It seems safe to assume that a large number of timers are going to be
on the order of 1-10ms. Because
On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On a separate thread, it was discussed that it is useful to support
microsecond resolution for future proofness.
I proposed seconds so that it was more clear that fractional versions
could be used, and because specifying microseconds as
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I briefly considered cases like that, but I thought it seemed simple enough
to just cancel the existing timer and start a new one. And it seemed
uncommon enough to me that it didn't need a direct affordance in the API
On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
The thing is that often enough the place where you want to modify
the delay you don't necessarily have access to the callback you
would need in order to recreate the timer. So, you have to keep
track of more stuff in JavaScript (e.g. a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
The thing is that often enough the place where you want to modify the
delay you don't necessarily have access to the callback you would need in
order to recreate the
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Timer startTimer(double delayInSeconds, bool repeating, Function
callback);
interface Timer {
void stop();
}
One other random idea. What about mixing up the param order for
parallelism with the existing timer
I agree. Repeating, it seems to me, should be an optional argument;
the callback and time, on the other hand, are completely necessary.
The default value for repeating is probably up for debate. Would
more web developers use it for repitition, or for single-use? For high
resolution purposes
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Alex Iskander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Repeating, it seems to me, should be an optional argument; the
callback and time, on the other hand, are completely necessary.
Good point.
The default value for repeating is probably up for debate. Would more web
Good point. And although you could change it to dontRepeat, I don't
think it would make much sense.
Sent from Alex's iPhone
On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Alex Iskander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Repeating, it seems
On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Timer startTimer(double delayInSeconds, bool repeating, Function
callback);
interface Timer {
void stop();
}
One other random idea. What about mixing up the
Maciej Stachowiak:
I think I will mention some of these possible variations when
proposing the spec. At Hixie's suggestion I will propose it as a
standalone spec on [EMAIL PROTECTED], I recommend that those who
wish to follow the discussion subscribe to that list.
Hixie mentioned at one
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:27 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak:
I think I will mention some of these possible variations when
proposing the spec. At Hixie's suggestion I will propose it as a
standalone spec on [EMAIL PROTECTED], I recommend that those
who
wish to follow the
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think I will mention some of these possible variations when
proposing the spec. At Hixie's suggestion I will propose it as a
standalone spec on [EMAIL PROTECTED], I recommend that those who
wish to follow the discussion subscribe to that
28 matches
Mail list logo
