- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:13:25 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 08:13:50 UTC
We implement an additional delay for timer tasks in background tabs in Chrome and would likely want the same for setImmediate(), if we were to implement the API at all. - James On Jun 30, 2011 12:26 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > Both setTimeout and setInterval have this step in their processing: > > * Optionally, wait a further user-agent defined length of time. > > I believe it would be a good idea to have this for setImmediate as well. > In Gecko's implementation, we are considering introducing a delay into > setImmediate invocations in background tabs, minimized windows, etc. > Not as much of a delay as setTimeout/setInterval are getting, but some > delay. > > Note that as long as you only examine setImmediate this is not black-box > distinguishable from throttling the entire event queue for the relevant > browsing context. You can only tell the difference by comparing order > of setImmediate invocation with other events in the event queue. > > -Boris >
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 08:13:50 UTC