Re: [XHR2] timeout

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:
>
>> xhr.onprogress = function() {
>>  this.timeout += 250;
>> }
>>
>
> What if a UA suspends scripts in background pages (eg. to save battery),
> but allows XHR requests to continue?  This would time out as soon as that
> happened.
>
> This particular snippet seems to be trying to do work that the browser
> should be taking care of.  If there's really a use case for "must receive
> some data every N milliseconds", in addition to .timeout ("the whole
> request must complete in N milliseconds"), then it seems better to add a
> separate timeout property for that instead of encouraging people to
> implement timeouts by hand.  It would also work fine for synchronous
> requests.
>
> (I don't know what the use cases are for this, though.)
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls <jarred@webkit.org>wrote:
>>
>>
>>    1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform.  To
>>    achieve the same results as a native dataTimeout, your snippet would need
>>    to be amended to maintain the time of the start of the request and
>>    calculate the difference between that and the time the progress event fired
>>    + your timeout value:
>>
>>    xhr.timeout = ((new Date()).getTime() - requestStart) + myTimeout;
>>
>> This, at least, doesn't seem interesting.  I don't think it's worthwhile
> to add new APIs just so people don't have to do simple math.
>
> var now = new Date().getTime();
> xhr.timeout = now - requestStart + timeoutLength;
>
> This is simple and clean; there's no need to complicate the platform for
> this.


You sound really self-conflicted based on how you started your message vs.
how you ended it.


>
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
>
>