W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [beacon] Random comments

From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:57:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOYaDdMP9ax+vZASMtRLo7Lk6_nkhj1xR29KpMNEvaDaAcuH4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I've updated the processing model to refer to the entry settings object per
Ian's latest comment.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html#sec-processing-model

Please let me know if this looks ok.

Arvind


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 2/12/14, 6:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/14 5:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I personally think C makes the most sense since it doesn't involve
>>>> grabbing some omnious global state. Instead the behavior is determined
>>>> by the more tangible answer to the question "which object did you call
>>>> a function on".
>>>>
>>>
>>> What object, or what function?
>>>
>>> Consider windowC.navigator.sendBeacon.apply(windowD.navigator, args)
>>>
>>
>> I would say D here. Carrying state in functions feels a lot more hacky
>> than carrying state in objects.
>>
>
> That was my reaction as well.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>> / Jonas
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 05:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:38 UTC