Modify AsyncUtil.Aggregation to be able to keep calling in limited rate.

Modify AsyncUtil.Aggregation to be able to keep calling in limited rate.

I changed behavior of AsyncUtil.Aggregation and changed its name to AsyncUtil.RateLimiter.
Previously, AsyncUtil.Aggregation aggregates consecutive calls as much as possible.
To keep update the UI, from now the closure will be called as much as possible keeping given minimum interval.

BUG=373627
TEST=manually change the window size continuously.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=276703

[fukino, 2014-06-11 09:52:55]

@mtomasz - Could you take a look?

[mtomasz, 2014-06-12 00:45:48]

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/1/ui/file_manager/file_manager...
File ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/1/ui/file_manager/file_manager...
ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js:263: * @param {boolean=}
opt_aggregate If true, consecutive calls are aggregated
Do we need opt_aggregate? Maybe it is not needed? Could you please do an
experiment and try resizing the sidebar with the opt_aggregate set to false? If
it is fine, then we could safely remove this code.

[fukino, 2014-06-12 04:41:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/1/ui/file_manager/file_manager...
File ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/1/ui/file_manager/file_manager...
ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js:263: * @param {boolean=}
opt_aggregate If true, consecutive calls are aggregated
On 2014/06/12 00:45:47, mtomasz wrote:
> Do we need opt_aggregate? Maybe it is not needed? Could you please do an
> experiment and try resizing the sidebar with the opt_aggregate set to false?
If
> it is fine, then we could safely remove this code.

Using RateLimiter for resizing window without aggregation looks good.
So I removed opt_aggregate flag and this make the RateLimiter simple.
Thank you for suggesting this to me!

[mtomasz, 2014-06-12 04:55:20]

LGTM with a nit!

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/20001/ui/file_manager/file_man...
File ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/20001/ui/file_manager/file_man...
ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js:291: this.lastRunTime_ = 0;
nit: How about Object.seal(this) at the end of the constructor? We use it
recently in Files app.

[fukino, 2014-06-12 05:41:40]

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/20001/ui/file_manager/file_man...
File ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329083002/diff/20001/ui/file_manager/file_man...
ui/file_manager/file_manager/common/js/async_util.js:291: this.lastRunTime_ = 0;
On 2014/06/12 04:55:20, mtomasz wrote:
> nit: How about Object.seal(this) at the end of the constructor? We use it
> recently in Files app.

Done.

[fukino, 2014-06-12 05:41:53]

The CQ bit was checked by fukino@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 05:43:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/fukino@chromium.org/329083002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 16:25:11]

Change committed as 276703