[webkit-dev] High Resolution Timer API proposal(s)

Darin Fisher darin at chromium.org
Thu Oct 2 17:43:08 PDT 2008

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>> > I don't really like the overengineered version. I like the "fairly
>> > minimalist" version best, but is there anything from the
>> > overengineered version that should be added to it?
>> I like the "fairly minimalist" version best as well.
>> The stop() method does seem a little lonely on the Timer interface all
>> by itself.
>> If others think any other members from the "overengineered" version
>> are important I would welcome them to keep stop() company.
> +1. My ideal would be the following:
> Timer startTimer(double delayInSeconds, bool repeating, Function callback);
> interface Timer {
>     void stop();
>     void resume();
>     void setDelay(double delayInSeconds);
> }
> That would cover the majority of cases I've seen in real-world javascript
> code. The argument for setDelay is wanting to be able to tweak the delay on
> the fly (e.g. Google Page Creator has autosave code that gets a response
> from the server  with a longer delay time when the server is overloaded).

That is a good use case.  Adjusting the delay can often be optimized down to
just re-positioning the already pending timeout in a priority queue.

Would it make sense for resume and setDelay to be combined as a
restart(delayInSeconds) method, perhaps where delayInSeconds is an optional

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20081002/6b350835/attachment.html 

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list