W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-houdini@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [css-paint-api] Spec feedback

From: Ian Kilpatrick <ikilpatrick@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:47:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJL3UpQ7fcwr8bPzpuz8GJkv+D4xB+XH2vCaFZ6PzYmT_BvUVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>
Cc: public-houdini@w3.org, Shu-yu Guo <shu@mozilla.com>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Alright so from the feedback I gather this spec it would be impossible to do immediate rendering if you have tiling. In that case you would use an intermediate surface and a copy step. Not a big problem given it would cause less compatibility issues. However not ideal if we want to minimize the overhead.


I'm not quite sure what this means, sorry? If the platform does tiling
then the paint function still works in immediate rendering mode. Are
you talking about implementing user-level tiling using the paint APIs?
They're not really designed for that use case, correct.

> I'm still not convinced on the motivation behind the *painting* houdini spec. The spec says "allows developers to paint a part of an element in response to geometry / computed style changes". I'm trying to understand if it's really needed to have the paintCallback execute during the painting phase of the rendering pipeline. The obvious alternative I see is to perform the 'painting' using the web content. For example conic-gradient is polyfilled using CSS SVG image. The biggest limitation the current conic-gradient polyfill has currently, as I understand it, is that it is not notified of geometry / computed style changes. I feel that the current spec is a bit overkill for it's purpose.


Let's start from the premise that you want to be notified of geometry
changes yet guarantee that you get included in the current frame (to
be able to polyfill something like conic-gradient with any fidelity
this is a requirement). This implies you're running after layout and
before the end of paint. Let's further require that we don't want to
enable the response to geometry changes to cause further geometry
changes. The combination of these features pretty much requires
something like the painting spec (although obviously there are lots of
details that can still be discussed).

>> b) What happens if you registerPaint more than once with the given name? Does it replace or do the callbacks stack and if so the behavior should be specified.
>>
>>
>> Similar to registerApply in the properties and values specification[1], this will throw an error. Added Issue.[2] If we allow stacking here we’ll suddenly need to provide an API for reordering callbacks which I think is unnecessary complexity. If the author needs this type of stacking API this would be trivial to implement on top of registerPaint.
>
>
> Conversely it could cause similar problems as onload vs. addEventListener('load', submitAction). You're right that code that knows about each other can easily combine their paint callbacks but library code may conflict. I imagine most web developers will import paint callbacks from 3rd party libraries. It's conceivable that two libraries may both supply a polyfill implementation for the same property. addEventListener allowed event listeners from library not conflict with each other. In this case we wouldn't want them to stack. If we throw an error however it might cause the second library to stop initializing if they don't wrap it around a try catch.


A better solution to the composition problem is by composing the
output images rather than trying to compose within the paint function.
This is both more idiomatic from a CSS perspective and less of a
feature delta. For example:

.foo {
  background-image: paint(lib1-paint) paint(lib2-paint);
}

I don't think that we should solve the composition/namespacing problem
with stacking or something clever. Its a fairly widely adopted pattern
in the web to namespace library code, e.g.
 - custom elements (throw upon re-registration)
 - css classes (last wins)
 - data attribute (last wins)
 - etc.

>> c) I agree with issue #5, better partial-invalidation (from both side) I think would be valuable. With immediate tile based rendering it would useful for the user agent to tell large paint callback that it's only interested in updating a subrect.
>>
>>
>> I'm now erring on the side that this isn't as useful, primarily from a compatibility point of view.
>>
>
> That's fair, but if we want to allow large and/or complex elements this will add overhead to smaller paints.


Do you mean that partial repaints of large and/or complex elements
will be more expensive? As discussed before, this is not the case in
Chrome, which currently requires a full display list to be regenerated
regardless of the size of the repaint region. At any rate, this sounds
like an interesting area to investigate for future levels of the
specification, but it isn't necessary for level 1.

>> For UAs that are DisplayList based, would simply require the whole area to be re-painted. If an author created two different implementations based on if the UA partially invalidated or not, then there could be implementation bugs between them which would lead to compat issues.
>
>
> They would only need to provide one implementation that invalidates which would also covers browser that don't require it.
>
> I don't think invalidation is tied to DisplayList based UAs. It can be useful for a UA that retains their DisplayList to use spacial invalidation and updates to their DisplayList instead of reconstructing it all.


That's true, it depends on the UA implementation.

>> d) What assumptions can the paint callback make about the canvas and what assumptions should it explicitly avoid making? For instance when doing immediate tile based rendering, say 256^2 tiles, of a large fragment say 1024^2 the user agent may want to fire 4 callbacks for each tile. Can the paintCallback make any assumptions about the canvas width/height, transformation and clip? This is closely related to partial-invalidation.
>>
>>
>> This sort of highlights why I think partial-invalidation might be a bad idea. An author may hard-code their math to assuming 256-tiling, then be surprised when a UA changes their tiling scheme or behaviour.
>>
>> To the question at hand, I would expect that the author is given the whole canvas, and additional data that indications the region the author needs to write to. If they write to more, the UA is allowed to throw that additional data away.
>
>
> I wouldn't expect the author to hard code anything. Even with tiles, the invalid region may not cover the entire tile. In this case I would just expect the author to paint blindly and let the canvas clip mask out unrelated operations, or for more complex operations look at the clip and self cull.
>
> The important part would be for the author to not assume that their callback is only called once per frame.


It adds a lot of complexity for authors if they have to assume that
they might be required to repaint arbitrary sub-regions of their
canvas. Either they'll need to implement intersection of their
primitives with a parametric region or they'll need to somehow detect
duplicate callbacks within a frame and ignore all bar the first. I
think this has to be opt-in rather than default, and not in the first
level of the feature.

>> g) What should the paint callback do when it encounters an error parsing the dependent css properties? The spec could say that if a paint callback throws a javascript exception with an error message then the user agent can report it. I'd imagine it would be useful if the paint callback can easily bubble up to the developer tools a parsing error with a particular dependent CSS property similar to how dev tools currently highlight errors like 'width: SomeText'.
>>
>>
>> This hopefully won’t be an issue if we have a typed OM.
>>
>
> Typed OM wouldn't cover all the use case so I authors will still use DOMString to implement unique properties that may still have errors in them. As well authors may want to reject non-nonsensical values such as one that would cause a division by zero and that has undefined behavior.


Again, this is a feature for a later level, but the custom properties
& values spec should ensure eventually that you are able to represent
unique properties via a parse string or a parser function.

>> h) Similarly what should the user agent do if there was an exception thrown during the paint callback unrelated to parsing. I'd imagine that the user agent can simply present the rendering context with whichever operations were completed before the error.
>>
>>
>> Added issue. [4] I think that hard failing and presenting no data would be the better option here, but would like to see what the wider group thinks.
>
>
> Presenting no data would make it impossible to do immediate rendering (without a rollback).


I was taking "immediate" to mean here that you always have to draw the
full image on the canvas, rather than this draws directly into a
buffer for usage. I would expect that UAs would hold onto the
DisplayList/pixels created by the paint function and splice/copy this
into their paint output. For a paint function that throws, it would
just produce an empty DisplayList /blank pixels.

>> j) PaintCallback is a callback. It looks like it would have access to the outer scopes. Web workers specify a script URL where it's clear that they don't have access to the outer scope. Should it match web workers?
>>
>>
>> registerPaint is on the PaintGlobalScope. (See the CSS Script API thread I wrote [6]). Specifically this would mean that all paint functions run in a separate execution context, similar to a worker, and scripts which register paint functions are loaded from the main execution context. For example:
>>
>> // Main execution context
>> window.paintExecutionContext.importScripts('my-painter.js');
>>
>> // Paint execution context
>> registerPaint({name: 'paint1', ... });
>> registerPaint({name: 'paint2', ... });
>>
>> This mean that paint callbacks wouldn't have access to the DOM, Storage, etc APIs. Blink would not cope well with a execution context per callback resulting in large memory usage at the moment. I suspect other JS engines would behave similar but would love feedback regarding this.
>>
>> The Script API explicitly leaves out the number of execution contexts per phase, so if an engine would like to parallelize an run multiple contexts per phase, they can.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand this here. It looks like since paint1/paint2 were imported in the same script the UA would be required to have them live in the same PaintGlobalScope. This would mean that the UA could not paint them in parallel. Or are any importScripts automically imported for each thread rendering context?


Correct, the scripts are imported for each "copy" of the script
execution context per thread. E.g. if you have 2 threads painting, you
could have 2 copies of the script execution context, and just call
into the respective callbacks.

> I'm afraid that if we allow global paint state then it opens up a lot of opportunity for UA compatibility issues. However I've had a chat with the Mozilla JS team and there does not seem to be any performance way to prevent this.


This is roughly the conclusion we came to. One thing that could
mitigate this is scripts get loaded into the execution context with:

(function() {
‘use strict’;
/* code from script goes here. */
])();

Additionally there would be no reference to self on the
PaintGlobalScope. This would mean that in order to communicate between
scripts you'd need to use a shared object like Array.prototype or
similar to should discourage authors from doing this. There might be
other things that we can try to discourage this.
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 14:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 August 2015 14:48:08 UTC