Budget API (especially reserve() method) #169
Comments
On the Intent to Ship: The Budget API’s reserve() method So, while |
A few thoughts as others haven't had a chance to weigh in on this; will open issues (as requested) once others here look:
|
Thanks Alex! Answers below (including a couple TODOs for us and questions for peter)
Meta-comment: it was fairly hard to go through this feedback and reply to it, this format seems like a fairly challenging one for having these discussions. Finding ways to make TAG reviews easier would be helpful, even if it's just numbering questions so they can be referred to later in the discussion etc. |
Hey @owencm: thanks for the reply and for marking the TODOs. Also, thanks for the notes on the format. We note that you requested that we provide feedback as issues on your repo and we'll break out the notes thus far as separate issues. We provided some quick feedback here due to timeliness concerns; apologies for the difficulty. We took this up today at the F2F meeting in TOK. Notes below are from the group discussion with @torgo, @triblondon, and @ylafon.
We'll convert the above into issues on your repo today. |
Set to London as a place-holder but hopefully we can review and close before that. |
Thank you for the feedback so far! I've replied or sent PRs for all of the above issues, and we'll definitely continue to iterate based on feedback and implementation experience. |
This CL enables the BudgetManager.reserve() method and activates the Origin Trial for the BudgetManager.getBudget() and getCost() methods, in accordance with the following Intents on blink-dev: Intent to Ship: The Budget API’s reserve() method: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/yBtmc-4xl_o/discussion Intent to Experiment: The Budget API’s getCost() and getBudget() methods: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/_l_fxUTWCHs/discussion Feedback from the TAG has been received and responded to in the issues kindly filed by Alex. This led to a number of clarifications and changes in the specification, which are in line with Chrome's implementation. TAG review: w3ctag/design-reviews#169 https://github.com/WICG/budget-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20tag BUG=704725 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2891953002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#474622}
It looks like the feedback here has been taken on board and we like the new privacy wording in WICG/budget-api#19. We understand that there may be a design rethink to this API and if there is, we'd like to take a look, but we're happy to close this review. |
Hello TAG!
I'm requesting a TAG review of: Budget API, with a focus on the reserve() method
Further details:
You should also know that at this stage we are only proposing to ship the reserve() method and intend on exposing the other methods only experimentally as part of our Origin Trials system.
Hence, we're specifically most interested in the reserve() method and whether it is decoupled sufficiently that we feel good about shipping it even as we wish to learn more about other parts of the API.
We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):
Thanks very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: