If other browsers do not implement the APIs, the situation is no worse than today; it will be possible to feature detect and take advantage of improved scheduling on browsers that do ship the API.
This API was recently discussed at the WebPerfWG F2F (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uQ7pXwuBv-1jitYou7TALJxV0tllXLxTyEjA2n1mSzY/edit?ts=5d0774e5#heading=h.ptau5ck3jdlk). The overall sentiment was positive, especially from developers present at the meeting. Browser vendors appear generally cautious, but supportive.
Gecko: No signal
Edge: No signal
WebKit: No signal Priority inversion and dependency tracking are concerns. We plan to flesh these concerns out and address them as the API progresses.
Web developers: Strongly positive Positive feedback at WebPerf WG F2F (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uQ7pXwuBv-1jitYou7TALJxV0tllXLxTyEjA2n1mSzY/edit?ts=5d0774e5#heading=h.ptau5ck3jdlk). We are also closely working with React, Google Maps, and Airbnb, who are strongly positive about the API.
Could the default usage of this API make it hard for Chrome to maintain good performance? Unlikely. There is always concern around starvation and abuse when introducing (higher) priorities. But it is always a possibility that script just won't yield (or queue microtasks, or abuse rAF) -- which are as high or higher than priorities we are planning to introduce. We will continue, however, to think about abuse and mitigation as we develop the API.
Will it be challenging for developers to take advantage of this feature immediately, as-is? No.
Would this feature benefit from having polyfills, significant documentation and outreach, and/or libraries built on top of it to make it easier to use? Yes.
- We want to validate that the new Signal/Controller-based API is ergonomic for developers (the shape has evolved quite a bit). Is it easy to use/integrate with existing schedulers or app code?
- We also want feedback on the priorities: are the priorities intuitive/useful? Are there (general) use cases that aren’t captured by these priorities? (See explainer for more discussion around number of priorities).
Performance: We’re relying on site-specific latency and responsiveness metrics for measuring performance. Specifically, we’re looking to find out if site-specific performance improves, regresses, or stays the same. The outcome can depend on a lot of factors, e.g. does the site already have a scheduler? how much of the page does the site own? how well does the implementation’s approach to integrating postTask tasks and tasks from other task sources work? Our hypothesis is that performance shouldn’t regress, but we want to validate this. And if it does regress performance, we want to understand why and possibly vary the implementation.
Usefulness of the MVP: We’re looking to answer a couple questions here:
1. Does the API simplify scheduling?
2. Is the postTask MVP useful enough on its own, or are there vital features missing? For example, are there enough guarantees/predictability around postTask priorities to be useful, or are priorities needed elsewhere (e.g. fetch, IDB)?
M88 -- M89
(Previous OT was M86 -- M87)
A partner (Airbnb) is requesting that we extend the OT so they can start a new experiment after fixing a data imbalance issue.
But it’s fully tested by Chromium wpt_internal tests: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:third_party/blink/web_tests/wpt_internal/scheduler/
Intent to prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/HvqbB7TGJKU/m/Kd0WUGXkAQAJ
Intent to Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/6KrwUguadyE/m/GK5C8KbWCQAJ
This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAKXGoJ1jW8zLkMkBtOwEHBQjf_c5ukPGdK%2B7Tn5ghHPanmy7Ug%40mail.gmail.com.