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 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 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).
>
> Ojan
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
