3 ms·

Why the need for a "sub-ms" timer implementation? Just do a while loop and constantly check for the SOP exception (or for Xms to have elapsed). Set a timeout

Why the need for a "sub-ms" timer implementation? Just do a while loop and constantly check for the SOP exception (or for Xms to have elapsed). Set a timeout between checking URLs. The ~10ms blocking of each URL check will not be noticeable to the UI. Nice PoC though, and thanks for the lack of press release ;) Edit: I just tried this out and it appears that the looping JS blocks the iframe from loading. I would have figured the iframe would be a separate JS thread. I'm wondering -- do all iframes share the same JS thread? Can one iframe block another? Anyway, it's clear that some sort of asynchronous solution is necessary.

futmacl 15y ago
Chiefly because if you have a fast machine, good connection, and a nearby CDN node, ~10 ms may be enough to establish a connection, make a request,and see the response. Plus, if you do setInterval(..., 1) and then measure new Date().getTime() deltas, you will probably see that even if the browser isn't doing anything taxing, you get 100 ms or more every now and then... I'm assuming there is someone working on JavaScript-RT as we speak, though ;-)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]