W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webtiming@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [timingobject] Is timeupdate event necessary?

From: None via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:36:42 +0000
To: public-webtiming@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-133909002-1440358601-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Frequency would be nice, but custom versions can easily be built as 
suggested, so I think keeping the addEventListener signature is 
fine if there is no opening for custom options.

Dr. Njål Borch
Senior researcher
Norut Tromsø, Norway

On 23 August 2015 at 21:30, Ingar Arntzen <notifications@github.com> 

> Njål Borch replied in
> "In regards to 2), why would time update be chained? I presume the 
code in
> 1) or equivalent could easily be included into the timing object 
itself, so
> nodes generate timeupdate events on subscriptions. They are not 
> hence there is no need for a transformation. The timeupdate event is
> convenient, if only to limit the amount of cut'n'paste code that 
people get
> wrong."
> Hm. Maybe it doesn't after all. In my mind the timeupdate event 
included a
> state vector - which would then have to be transformed in a chain. 
> if we simply say that there is no vector included - then the problem
> evaporates :)
> If we were to include this logic into the timing object, it would be
> to support custom frequency by parameter.
> .on("timeupdate", handler, 100)
> I suppose this would be inconsistent with the classical 
> signature? Is there any way around this?
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> .

GitHub Notif of comment by Snarkdoof
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2015 19:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:25:14 UTC