Zinger ↑ on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

4 recasts

4 reactions

Brenner pfp

Pretty much every frame I interact with does this. What’s the deal? Can the devs do something?

6 replies

29 recasts

169 reactions

horsefacts pfp

@horsefacts.eth

Send me some recent examples. The most common cases are: Images that are too large Unsupported content types Frame server timeouts Unfortunately, a lot of this responsibility falls on the frame server.

4 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Brenner pfp

When I click “see my circle” Why do frame servers crash but not most side-project websites I visit? https://warpcast.com/zinger/0x0a3bf53d

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

horsefacts pfp

@horsefacts.eth

Good question. My guess is you're more tolerant of a >5 second response time when you load a side project site in the browser.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Brenner pfp

At least it loads after 5 seconds vs the frame not loading at all

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Zinger ↑ pfp

This is a good point, has there been any discussion about increasing the frame timeout limit? Feels a bit short atm

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

horsefacts pfp

@horsefacts.eth

Personally pretty opposed to increasing it. 5 seconds is 10x what I would consider a max acceptable response time for most web apps.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Zinger ↑ pfp

A frame that takes awhile to load is better than a frame that doesn't load at all, especially as the primitives and devtools continue to develop

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Samuel ツ pfp

@samuellhuber.eth

That’s on us as developers though User experience doesn’t improve by increasing the limit

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Brenner pfp

Agreed. And some of these frames are doing long-task / async type of work, and aren’t cached for every possible fc user that interacts w the frame If there’s already an issue w timeout, I don’t think 500ms is gonna make the frame devs go build better frame infra today The users (me) are souring on frames

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction