On Sep 30, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That seems like incorrect reasoning to me. unclamped setTimeout(0)
does not break processing of user events in a single-process browser
(I tested). But it will equally drain your laptop battery and
produce a great deal of heat and noise with single-process and
multiprocess architectures.
Right, which is one reason we don't run fully-unclamped -- we clamp
to 1 ms, and are trying to get anyone other than hyatt to discuss
the ramifications of clamping to 3 or 4 ms. I think this proposal
solves most of the objections that have been raised, but people
still seem more interested in discussing the problems encountered
back when WebKit had fully-unclamped timers, which is a different
and more risky case.
I don't think there is a huge difference between 1ms and no clamp at
all. 3ms or 4ms would be significantly different (probably). But it
also seems less worth it to make such a change if a high resolution
unclamped API is added as well.
I certainly do support the proposals for an object-based, higher-
resolution timer alongside. But the responsiveness/performance gain
from lowering the timer clamp on setTimeout() is noticeable. It's a
real win, which you can see today, on a number of existing sites.
Can you cite some of the existing sites that would benefit? That would
help others confirm the benefit and also estimate likelihood of said
sites adopting a new better API for greater benefit.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
