- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:33:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Both setTimeout and setInterval have this step in their processing: > > * Optionally, wait a further user-agent defined length of time. > > I believe it would be a good idea to have this for setImmediate as well. > In Gecko's implementation, we are considering introducing a delay into > setImmediate invocations in background tabs, minimized windows, etc. Not > as much of a delay as setTimeout/setInterval are getting, but some > delay. > > Note that as long as you only examine setImmediate this is not black-box > distinguishable from throttling the entire event queue for the relevant > browsing context. You can only tell the difference by comparing order > of setImmediate invocation with other events in the event queue. What's the difference between setImmediate() and setTimeout(..., 0)? Is it just that it uses a different task source? (i.e. can be prioritised differently relative to setTimeout() calls by the event loop?) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 07:33:43 UTC