- From: Daniel Buchner <danieljb2@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:27:09 -0700
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHZ6zJFGDdK+wzvZCNu_iUDHG1-q+t_L04fx_1Q+8SV-qG5XTw@mail.gmail.com>
> Just to be clear, these are callbacks (right?), meaning synchronous > executions on one specific node. That is a far cry from the old issues > with mutation events and nightmarish bubbling scenarios. Where does bubbling come in? - I thought the concern was over the same issues that plagued mutation *events*, namely perf-crushing event bubbling sparked by frequent DOM changes. But the issues with synchronous callbacks are not about performance, last I checked, so I'm not sure why you're setting up this strawman. Or are people arguing something here based on performance considerations that I missed? - I wasn't aware of setting up such a strawman, I honestly thought the issue was perf. I thought this because Jonas said this: "This will have many of the same problems that mutation events had. I believe we want to really stay away from synchronous. So yes, this looks dangerous and crazy" ----- > as long as when they do fire, they fire once and the value/changes aren't stale. Not sure what you mean here. - I mean, that it doesn't matter if you make all the callbacks fire at the end of a micro task, as long as you're not reporting old, irrelevant changes to the developer - for instance: if an attribute foo changes 3 times before the micro task is finished, the browser should resolve the mutation record set to only fire one callback for the last "fresh" occurrence of the mutation/action in question. > Honestly, ready/created, inserted, and removed wouldn't be an issue if > they map to micro tasks, right? Running script at end of microtask is generally fine by me, since it doesn't have the issues that running script sync does. - Great, so what's the problem here? Are we officially in violent agreement? :) ----- > If attribute change callbacks are your worry, Brian Kardell > mentioned something sensible, give people a way to whitelist just the > ones that they want to watch for - assuming that is faster than simply > telling devs to use basic if/switch logic inside the callback. It's almost certainly faster but may not be worth the machinery, depending on how much this is actually going to be used in practice. - these four basic callbacks/mutations are essential to custom element/component development - they will be used frequently, in our experience thus far. ----- > There are many options here, let's not have an API-degrading, whopper > freakout over a nascent concern of a fringe perf issue that is, to a > large extent, self-mitigating/healing. (devs generally don't want to > have slow crappy apps - built-in incentives to not suck are usually the > best kind) You and I seem to have different opinions on whether people care about their code being a resource hog... Note that the typical culprits for not caring are not "apps", though. - The target and actual audience is probably not going to be noobs/beginners, this is a pretty complex API - it appears you agree: "the typical culprits for not caring are not apps". - Daniel
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 21:28:06 UTC