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

Re: [Resource Timing] Web worker initiatorType?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_46a=Lc4eMOV1vrnQ4tdUZq-izhJrQZTgG1BXEzDuX2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
For shared workers you can't make it show up in the performance
metrics for "the document" since a shared worker doesn't have a
lifetime connected to any particular document.

Shared workers essentially are stand-alone documents that are running
off the main thread in a UI-less context.

Dedicated workers are always tied to the document that created them.
They go away when the document goes away (I *think* that's the case
even when MessageChannels are in play, but the spec doesn't spell it
out clearly).

So you *could* consider dedicated workers as part of their owning
document. But you could also keep them consistent with shared workers
and make them create a new context.

/ Jonas

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I agree that we should consider adding Web Worker support in the Resource
> Timing L2 spec.
>
>
>
> For web workers, we need to decide whether the resources downloaded by the
> web worker should show up in the main document associated with the worker,
> or only when the buffer is requested from the web worker context though the
> performance.getEntries() methods. The opposite is also interesting, should
> the resources used in the main document by shown when calling
> performance.getEntries() methods from the worker context? Sounds like an
> interesting use case.
>
>
>
> If we decide to show the data in the main documents associated with the
> worker, we’ll need to consider if we want to overload initiatorType with
> ‘worker’ or come up with a new attribute to describe where the request came
> from. There’s also the detail on which documents we should associate with a
> shared worker (all documents?). If we decide to only show the data in the
> worker context, I don’t think we need to worry about those details.
>
>
>
> As for the script being used by the worker, seems like the initiator here
> would really be the script element on the main document.
>
>
>
> There’s also the bit on adding the
> performance.getEntries/getEntriesByType/getEntriesByName functions to the
> web worker context. I think we should definitely make that change.
>
>
>
> We should discuss in the conference call in which direction we are leaning.
> I can make spec changes accordingly.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jatinder
>
>
>
> From: James Simonsen [mailto:simonjam@google.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:47 PM
> To: public-web-perf
> Subject: [Resource Timing] Web worker initiatorType?
>
>
>
> Earlier, we decided to punt Web Worker support to a level 2 spec. [1] We
> were mainly talking about resource downloaded inside the worker, like XHRs.
>
>
>
> What about the worker itself? Its script is actually fetched by the main
> document, so it seems like it should show up in the buffer and have a
> "worker" initiatorType. WDYT?
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Jun/0002.html
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 17:29:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:36 UTC