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

RE: [ResourceTiming] Handling of "resourcetimingbufferfull" events makes no sense

From: Juan Carlos Estibariz <Juan.Carlos.Estibariz@software.dell.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:07:25 +0000
To: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA653607F2A7A141BE7CD7AE370189E6123C2854@ALVMBXW01.prod.quest.corp>
I guess point 20.1 in 5.1 (Processing Model) could be interpreted as the option you are proposing, i.e. invoking clearResourceTimings doesn't clear the primary buffer immediately but it just sets a flag which would cause the buffer to be cleared after the event is processed.

If that's the desired behaviour I think it should be documented both in 5.1/20.1 and in 4.4/clearResourceTimings, right?

Another option is to not extend EventTarget, but I don't have a strong sense about the correctness of that one :)


From: James Simonsen [simonjam@google.com]
Sent: October 2, 2013 2:13 PM
To: Juan Carlos Estibariz
Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: Re: [ResourceTiming] Handling of "resourcetimingbufferfull" events makes no sense

This is a good point. The simple function made it clear that there could only be one.

We could address it by making clearResourceTimings async. Anyone else have an opinion?


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Juan Carlos Estibariz <Juan.Carlos.Estibariz@software.dell.com<mailto:Juan.Carlos.Estibariz@software.dell.com>> wrote:

I just noticed this thread and I wanted to point out that since the handler of resourcetimingbufferfull is supposed to clear the buffer (so new entries can be added), having more than one handler for this event (by using addEventListener from EventTarget) is probably going to produce incorrect results for all but one of them.

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 19:07:56 UTC

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