- From: Jeremy Doig <jeremydo@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:02:29 -0800
i would hope that repainting a progress bar that has not moved 50x/second would not be a normal implementation too. 2x/second seems more realistic (a 300s video with a 600 pixel-wide playbar). On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > >> It seems like a pretty big waste of resources to have the following script >> executing 50 times per second: >> >> function timeupdatehandler(e) { >> video = e.target; >> completed = video.currentTime / video.duration; >> thumb = document.getElementById('thumb' + video.id); >> thumb.style.left = >> calcScreenPositionUsingOffsetLeftRecursion(thumb.parentNode) + >> thumb.parentNode.offsetWidth * completed; >> progress = document.getElementById('progress' + video.id); >> progress.style.width = >> progress.parentNode.offsetWidth * completed; >> } >> >> Sure, we can pull it off, but why do it? At it certainly doesn't seem to >> archive the goal of the event which apparently is to reduce the amount of >> CPU resources used. > > > It ensures that the UI is always perfectly up to date. We can throttle > timeupdate if we get too busy but otherwise, we may as well update the UI as > frequently as the video rendering itself. > > Rob > -- > "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; > the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are > healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his > own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah > 53:5-6] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081117/bf2bd39e/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 14:02:29 UTC