Side navigation
#9384 closed feature (wontfix)
Opened May 22, 2011 07:01PM UTC
Closed October 29, 2012 04:52PM UTC
Last modified November 27, 2012 05:39PM UTC
jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.
| Reported by: | louisremi@mozilla.com | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | None |
| Component: | effects | Version: | 1.6.1 |
| Keywords: | 1.9-discuss | Cc: | |
| Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.
Why removing fx.interval?
- reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)
- fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame
- developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )
Why throttling animation ticks instead?
- because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)
- because it can solves all of the above problems
- because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files
Attachments (0)
Change History (25)
Changed May 22, 2011 07:27PM UTC by comment:1
| keywords: | → 1.7-discuss |
|---|
Changed May 22, 2011 08:36PM UTC by comment:2
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+0,
Changed May 23, 2011 12:59AM UTC by comment:3
+1, Agreed
Changed May 23, 2011 05:01AM UTC by comment:4
+1, do it :)
Changed May 24, 2011 01:00AM UTC by comment:5
| component: | unfiled → effects |
|---|---|
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
| priority: | undecided → low |
| status: | new → open |
Changed May 24, 2011 10:14PM UTC by comment:6
+0, That commit has more than one line of code. Also, it changes the documented jQuery.fx.interval behavior. What docs changes do we need on this?
Changed June 03, 2011 02:08PM UTC by comment:7
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+1, I think this is fine. Good to get consistency.
Changed June 05, 2011 10:19PM UTC by comment:8
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+1
Changed June 06, 2011 03:23PM UTC by comment:9
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+0
Changed June 07, 2011 01:11PM UTC by comment:10
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|---|
| milestone: | 1.next → 1.7 |
| owner: | → lrbabe |
| status: | open → assigned |
Changed July 21, 2011 02:22PM UTC by comment:11
pull request from lrbabe
Changed September 22, 2011 03:10PM UTC by comment:12
| keywords: | 1.7-discuss → 1.8-discuss |
|---|---|
| milestone: | 1.7 → 1.8 |
Pushed to 1.8 since requestAnimationFrame was removed in 1.6.3 and it should be addressed as part of a larger animation reorganization.
Changed December 13, 2011 01:40PM UTC by comment:13
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+1
Changed December 13, 2011 04:01PM UTC by comment:14
+0, Part of a bigger animation rewrite
Changed December 13, 2011 05:14PM UTC by comment:15
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+0, Definitely part of a bigger rethink, so I'll defer to gnarf.
Changed December 13, 2011 05:26PM UTC by comment:16
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+1, if raf is coming back
Changed December 14, 2011 04:00PM UTC by comment:17
+1, Makes sense if raf comes back
Changed December 19, 2011 05:13PM UTC by comment:18
| description: | jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature.\ Why removing fx.interval?\ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps)\ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame\ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help )\ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead?\ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps)\ - because it can solves all of the above problems\ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files → jQuery.fx.interval should be replaced by an 'animation-tick' throttling feature. \ Why removing fx.interval? \ - reducing fx.interval fails at producing noticeably smoother animations (browser vendors even agreed on a 16.666 value to aim for 60fps) \ - fx.interval is useless in browsers supporting requestAnimationFrame \ - developers struggle at updating the interval value while their animation is running (example: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/jquery-fx-interval-controlled-by-ui-slider-help ) \ \ Why throttling animation ticks instead? \ - because it serves a similar purpose (saving CPU cycles when animations do not need to run at 60fps) \ - because it can solves all of the above problems \ - because the implementation adds only 1 line of code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/334/files |
|---|
+1, I tend to trust gnarf on these things
Changed June 04, 2012 06:23PM UTC by comment:19
| owner: | lrbabe → gnarf |
|---|
Changed August 10, 2012 05:50PM UTC by comment:20
| keywords: | 1.8-discuss → 1.9-discuss |
|---|---|
| milestone: | 1.8 → 1.9 |
It is time to talk about rAF again?
Changed September 09, 2012 01:10AM UTC by comment:21
| type: | enhancement → feature |
|---|
Bulk change from enhancement to feature.
Changed October 14, 2012 10:16PM UTC by comment:22
+1, still plus one
Changed October 22, 2012 04:53PM UTC by comment:23
| owner: | gnarf |
|---|---|
| status: | assigned → open |
I would really like to see this as one of those "interchangable" points, that we could actually release a plugin to use a different "timer loop" -- The setTimeout() and interval right now are like the "default" and also, no matter what we end up doing, they are the least amount of code. I'm going to pull myself off of this one and suggest that we think about making the "tick throttling" a pluginable feature.
Changed October 29, 2012 04:52PM UTC by comment:24
| resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| status: | open → closed |
Closing this in favor of #12803
Changed November 27, 2012 05:39PM UTC by comment:25
| milestone: | 1.9 → None |
|---|
Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.