W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

From: James Greene <james.m.greene@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 12:18:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CALrbKZhWRGoQZvtMcA5BiMTA--tpo2f1CRXWbv0s71gpbUYGMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com>
If we're going to choose a name that abstracts the implementation details
(and rightly so), why not just go with `navigator.concurrency`?

Sincerely,
    James Greene
    Sent from my [smart?]phone
On May 4, 2014 8:50 AM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 2014, at 7:45, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The proposal specifically states using logical cores, which handles
> > >> all of the CPUs you mentioned properly.
> > >>
> > >> Intel CPUs with hyperthreading enabled report logical cores as double
> > >> the hardware cores. Depending on the version and configuration of the
> > >> Samsung Exynos Octa big.LITTLE CPUs, you will get either 4 logical
> > >> cores (only one cluster can run at a time) or 8 logical cores
> > >> (big.LITTLE MP, available in Exynos 5420 or later only).
> > >>
> > >
> > > Great!
> > > Make sure this is captured when it is put in a specification.
> > > Otherwise the subtlety between an actual and a logical core might get
> > lost.
> >
> > Shouldn't this also be captured in the API's name?
> >
>
> Maybe navigator.hardwareConcurrency as a nod to the C++11 name?
>
> Adam
>
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2014 17:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:20 UTC