Skip to content

Add Delayed Messages API Explainer #1029

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 9, 2025

Conversation

joone
Copy link
Contributor

@joone joone commented May 10, 2025

The Delayed Messages API allows web developers to identify congested browser contexts or workers and provide details on the end-to-end timing of postMessage events, as well as their related blocking tasks.

@joone joone force-pushed the delayed_messages branch 10 times, most recently from 09536f0 to 1a64a5e Compare May 12, 2025 04:40
@joone joone force-pushed the delayed_messages branch from 1a64a5e to 617e3a4 Compare May 12, 2025 08:24
Copy link

@evanstade evanstade left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for putting this together!

@joone joone force-pushed the delayed_messages branch 2 times, most recently from 2b30298 to 679ffe6 Compare May 18, 2025 20:38
- Updated problem description to clarify causes of `postMessage` delays and challenges in identifying root causes.
- Expanded explanation of deserialization timing inconsistencies across browsers.
- Refined summary of problems to emphasize the need for a dedicated API for diagnosing `postMessage` delays.
- Improved description of `PerformanceExecutionContextInfo.name` to clarify optionality for workers and windows/iframes.
- Removed "It adds boilerplate code and maintenance overhead" in manual instrumentation section.
- Added missing reference to the Event Timing API in the references section.
- Update congested example to remove IndexedDB references
@joone joone force-pushed the delayed_messages branch from 679ffe6 to 0ee2031 Compare May 19, 2025 00:49
@sfortiner
Copy link
Member

A few housekeeping items:

  • Include an edit to the README.md file to include this in the list of explainers
  • Please add a section at the top about how to participate in the discussion related to this explainer, appropriate venue, etc. Look through some of the other explainers for examples of doing this. If the appropriate discussion forum is MSEdgeExplainers, consider adding an issue template at https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/tree/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE
  • Consider adding at TOC (table of contents) given the length of the explainer
  • Are we aware of other web developers discussing the issue that this proposal is aiming to solve? Other browser vendors weighing into this space? If so, providing some links to those discussions in a User Research or Stakeholder Feedback/Opposition section is helpful for letting others quickly catch up to current thinking.

@joone
Copy link
Contributor Author

joone commented Jun 7, 2025

@sfortiner I’ve updated the explainer to include:

  • A table of contents
  • A section at the top on how to participate in the discussion
  • A “Related Discussion, Articles, and Browser Issues” section

Thank you!

@SteveBeckerMSFT SteveBeckerMSFT merged commit 7c20fd8 into MicrosoftEdge:main Jun 9, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants