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

Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

From: Ben Vanik <benvanik@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:01:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOB_hFQhA-MR7Dp1RAf7NWh1=bai+ao5ARSZJT3VbhUKUx-eUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
Thanks for doing this Jatinder! I'm really excited to see access to
performance.now() in workers!

How does one determine the navigationStart-like value for shared workers?
In order to try to correlate times between shared workers and the pages
that launch them, it's important to be able to map the relative times
returned by now.


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  The time immediately before step 1 feels like the appropriate creation
> time for the worker. If we can get a hook into step 1 put into the Web
> Workers spec, I can link directly to that definition. Iíll file a bug on
> the editor.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jatinder****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Robinson [mailto:jamesr@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:56 PM
> *To:* Jatinder Mann
> *Cc:* public-web-perf; James Simonsen
>
> *Subject:* Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support****
>
> ** **
>
> In the line:****
>
> ** **
>
> For a shared worker<http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/#shared-workers-and-the-sharedworkerglobalscope-interface>,
> the *time origin* must be equal to the time of creation of the shared
> worker.****
>
> ** **
>
> What is the definition of 'creation of the shared worker'?  I could
> imagine in the processing model:****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#processing-model-6
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> that this could be interpreted as a time before or after steps 1, 4, 5, or
> just before step 8.  I think it needs a better normative reference,
> although the concept seems fine.****
>
> ** **
>
> - James****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  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.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
>  ****
>
> [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.****
>
>  ****
>
> James****
>
>  ****
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  I believe updating the spec to support now() in Web Workers isnít 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, weíll need
> to specifically exclude them. I think we should be able to make this change
> relatively quickly once we have consensus.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* James Simonsen [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.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> James****
>
>   ****
>
>  ** **
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:02:24 UTC

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