W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Proposal: add "group" concept to Performance Timeline

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 14:06:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CADXXVKoZA-tVSCP2FbTxoQo8y3DGjv5_Bzwh6YeCg97-CbeoJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Thinking about this some more, and with benefit of lots of great feedback
from various folks...
https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/pull/9#issuecomment-89042906

WDYT? Crazy talk? :)






On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ... and I believe that it's a generally useful and powerful concept that
>> enables Performance Timeline to communicate event cascades.
>>
>
> Just realized that the "cascades" part is not true. As currently proposed
> an event cannot simultaneously be part of a group and have its own
> subtree... For that we'd need two fields: "parent" to link to another event
> or logical group, plus an "id" field that can act as a parent key for other
> events. That said, I'm not sure if we need this extra functionality... It
> seems that simple (one level) groups may be sufficient for the current use
> cases?
>
> Some examples:
> - Multi-req navigation: [nav-request{group: a}, redirected-req{group: a}]
> - Multi-req resource fetch: [cors-request{group: b}, fetch-req{group: b}]
> - Req + Server-Timing: [request{group: c}, server-timing{group: c}]
> - Linking Frame-Timing events: [renderer{group: d}, composite{group: d},
> composite:{group: d}]
> - ...
>
> Thoughts? Anything I'm forgetting or overlooking?
>
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 21:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 2 April 2015 21:07:10 UTC