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

Re: [Beacon] spec feedback + few suggestions

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:42:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-53O1jyiOOXL1symu6A_=xBST-LPKAwe_deZFcDWkaYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: Chase Douglas <chase@newrelic.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, "Austin, Daniel" <daaustin@paypal.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Thur, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> Actually, if we want to add a timeout argument in the future (after which the beacon is dropped on the floor)
>> that would also be a reason to make the last argument a dictionary for now.
>
> What's the use case with timeouts?

The usecase is that if you are sending a beacon to track "user clicked
an ad in the bing search results", then you want to really not lose
track of that click since it is what makes you money. So you'll want
to use a long timeout, like a day or two.

But presumably there are use cases for when the data is no longer
important if it wasn't submitted after a few minutes. I don't actually
have any examples of this, but I think Ilya did.

I definitely think that if the timeout is reached, we should drop the
message on the floor and *not* notify the page. So it should be a
mechanism for doing retries. I.e. the timeout means "the data is
useless after this point", not "need to try something else after this
point".
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 01:43:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC