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

Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

From: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:18:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPVJQinzAtPywpQEg4VkTuzQL70dgc5CPubq9Gb9c_vorD3smA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
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 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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, 27 February 2013 23:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 23:19:25 GMT