On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Ian Vollick <voll...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:36 AM Justin Novosad <ju...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds great to me.  I agree this is an important scenario.  *Ian*,
>>>
>>>
>>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>> I would certainly like to see requestAnimationFrame in a worker, but
>> there is more risk of falling out of step with vsync in a vanilla worker
>> that has access to APIs that are dangerous from a performance point of
>> view. It would also be nice to run a worker with rAF on an elevated
>> priority thread (or maybe even the compositor thread), but that would be a
>> bad idea if it can do stuff like synchronous IO.
>>
>
> I fear a proliferation of different kinds of restricted Workers that would
> make it hard to handle multiple kinds of callbacks in a single Worker, so
> I'd rather not introduce a new restricted kind unless it's absolutely
> necessary. I think it would be fine to support rAF in a general
> DedicatedWorker and then later, if absolutely necessary, provide an
> elevated-priority Worker with restricted API.
>
> After implementing rAF for DedicatedWorker, the first slow-script
> mitigation I'd like to introduce is the "you missed your frame deadline"
> event that we've been talking about for a whlie.
>

In the requestIdleCallback proposal (
https://w3c.github.io/requestidlecallback/ ) a deadline argument is passed
to the callback. That's an idea we could apply here as well.  Not sure
whether it is better or worse than using an event.


>
> Rob
> --
> lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
> toD
> selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
> rdsme,aoreseoouoto
> o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
> lurpr
> .a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
> esn
>

Reply via email to