On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Darin Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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" version best, but is there anything from the
>>> > overengineered version that should be added to it?
>>>
>>> I like the "fairly minimalist" version best as well.
>>>
>>> The stop() method does seem a little lonely on the Timer interface all
>>> by itself.
>>>
>>> If others think any other members from the "overengineered" version
>>> are important I would welcome them to keep stop() company.
>>>
>>
>> +1. My ideal would be the following:
>>
>> Timer startTimer(double delayInSeconds, bool repeating,
>> Function callback);
>>
>> interface Timer {
>> void stop();
>> void resume();
>> void setDelay(double delayInSeconds);
>> }
>>
>> That would cover the majority of cases I've seen in real-world javascript
>> code. The argument for setDelay is wanting to be able to tweak the delay on
>> the fly (e.g. Google Page Creator has autosave code that gets a response
>> from the server with a longer delay time when the server is overloaded).
>>
>
> That is a good use case. Adjusting the delay can often be optimized down
> to just re-positioning the already pending timeout in a priority queue.
>
> Would it make sense for resume and setDelay to be combined as a
> restart(delayInSeconds) method, perhaps where delayInSeconds is an optional
> parameter?
>
Yes. :)
Ojan
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
