Skip to main content

Bug Tracker

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?

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 john comment:1

keywords: → 1.7-discuss

Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.

Changed May 22, 2011 08:36PM UTC by rwaldron 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/filesjQuery.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 jaubourg comment:3

+1, Agreed

Changed May 23, 2011 05:01AM UTC by timmywil comment:4

+1, do it :)

Changed May 24, 2011 01:00AM UTC by timmywil comment:5

component: unfiledeffects
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/filesjQuery.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: undecidedlow
status: newopen

Changed May 24, 2011 10:14PM UTC by dmethvin 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 john 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/filesjQuery.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 ajpiano 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/filesjQuery.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 scottgonzalez 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/filesjQuery.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 lrbabe 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/filesjQuery.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.next1.7
owner: → lrbabe
status: openassigned

Changed July 21, 2011 02:22PM UTC by timmywil comment:11

pull request from lrbabe

Changed September 22, 2011 03:10PM UTC by dmethvin comment:12

keywords: 1.7-discuss1.8-discuss
milestone: 1.71.8

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 mikesherov 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/filesjQuery.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 jaubourg comment:14

+0, Part of a bigger animation rewrite

Changed December 13, 2011 05:14PM UTC by dmethvin 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/filesjQuery.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 jzaefferer 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/filesjQuery.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 timmywil comment:17

+1, Makes sense if raf comes back

Changed December 19, 2011 05:13PM UTC by rwaldron 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/filesjQuery.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 gnarf comment:19

owner: lrbabegnarf

Changed August 10, 2012 05:50PM UTC by dmethvin comment:20

keywords: 1.8-discuss1.9-discuss
milestone: 1.81.9

It is time to talk about rAF again?

Changed September 09, 2012 01:10AM UTC by dmethvin comment:21

type: enhancementfeature

Bulk change from enhancement to feature.

Changed October 14, 2012 10:16PM UTC by mikesherov comment:22

+1, still plus one

Changed October 22, 2012 04:53PM UTC by gnarf comment:23

owner: gnarf
status: assignedopen

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 mikesherov comment:24

resolution: → wontfix
status: openclosed

Closing this in favor of #12803

Changed November 27, 2012 05:39PM UTC by dmethvin comment:25

milestone: 1.9None