W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2013

RE: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:43:45 +0000
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
CC: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <5483517ae38f4723bb563c57c71dc469@BLUPR03MB065.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I have uploaded High Resolution Time Level 2 specification [1], which now supports performance.now() method in the Web Workers context. Please review the spec and provide feedback.


[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/HighResolutionTime2/Overview.html

From: James Simonsen [mailto:simonjam@chromium.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Jatinder Mann
Cc: public-web-perf
Subject: Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

I was thinking just now() for the time being. I think the other stuff gets tricky when you have shared workers.

I guess that means we need to define the 0 value too. I'd vote that it's the worker creation time.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com<mailto:jmann@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I believe updating the spec to support now() in Web Workers isn't hard. The real issue is whether we want to move the entire performance object, all the methods and attributes, or a subset of the performance object to Web Workers as well.

If we feel the Timing specs may not make sense in Web Workers, we'll need to specifically exclude them. I think we should be able to make this change relatively quickly once we have consensus.


From: James Simonsen [mailto:simonjam@chromium.org<mailto:simonjam@chromium.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:53 PM
To: public-web-perf
Subject: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

Hi guys,

Sorry to raise this again, but we keep getting bugged about it. How hard would it be to add Web Workers to High Res Time? The first edition is already a recommendation, so I think we'd need to create a level 2 spec for it.

Does anyone know how large of a change to the spec it'd be? Is it just a matter of adding one tag to the IDL? If so, it seems like we might be able to do it relatively quickly.

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 23:45:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:35 UTC