W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > January 2011

Re: About window.performance namespace

From: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:11:54 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JWGiMti8zKF3khvY0T83m960f4Xd8LwuXCDpj@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>
Cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Now that the spec is entering last call, we've provisionally removed
the prefix in WebKit (now window.performance).
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/75200

Our internal testing of ~750k URLs didn't turn up any conflicts as
long as the object is replaceable (~60 uses of "var performance" or
"window.performance" stomped on the built-in). Of course this is a
small sample, but we take it to mean the chance of collision is
acceptably low when weighed against the desire for a terse,
descriptive name. If we get any bugs during the Chrome dev or beta
cycles, we may be forced to choose a longer name.

-Tony

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org> wrote:
> Maybe now would be a good time to establish a sort of reserved naming
> convention for standard DOM interfaces - something like w3cPerformance?
> Doesn't really roll off the tongue but it's less likely to collide and
> pretty clear that it's the standardized interface.
>
> -Pat
>
> On 1/7/2011 3:13 AM, Zhiheng Wang wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> 2011/1/5 Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>:
>> > Hi Jonas,
>> >
>> > You've pointed out a valid theoretical coding pattern that would
>> > potentially have compatibility issues. Through the research tools that we
>> > have collectively in this working group, we found that all of the patterns
>> > involving the performance namespace used the initial declaration: var
>> > performance.
>> >
>> > Using different namespaces like "pagePerformance" or
>> > "performanceMetrics" does not eliminate the problem altogether. We have
>> > decided to continue to use the performance namespace as it is suitable and
>> > intuitive for developers when this working group adds additional attributes
>> > / metrics.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense. Why is the litmus test "eliminate the problem
>> altogether"? If something significantly reduces the problem then
>> surely it's an improvement worth considering, no?
>>
>> You still haven't answered the question from my previous email:
>>
>> Is there a reason the property couldn't be named something with a
>> smaller risk of collisions, such as "pagePerformance" or
>> "performanceMetrics".
>
>    This sounds like a plan to me as well...
> cheers,
> Zhiheng
>
>>
>> / Jonas
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 17:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:29 UTC