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

RE: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame]

From: Savil Srivastava <Savil.Srivastava@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:51:39 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21FB391336E14A4DAB4C2C116B9B86AF17935F9B@TK5EX14MBXC118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
As far as things go, yes, this isn't a particularly difficult to implement API expansion. However, I respectfully disagree that it doesn't have costs involved -- there are always costs of testing the extra API surface, and maintaining it over the course of the next many years. There's also the cognitive cost of people wondering why we have two ways of doing the same thing.

In general, though, would you not agree that it is a bad principle to overload APIs without new functional benefits?



-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:56 AM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame]

On 6/1/11 7:54 PM, Savil Srivastava wrote:
> Here, my main concern is that we would be expanding the API surface area

In a way that imposes no particular penalties on implementations, right?

Why is this a problem?

-Boris


Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:52:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:52:08 GMT