- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:19:15 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415 --- Comment #3 from Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> 2012-06-08 19:19:15 UTC --- I completely agree that workers are a better approach for lower-latency, smaller buffer sizes. But there is a cost to the developer to being required to use a web worker because the JavaScript state is completely isolated from the main JS thread. Thus it will require more complex code, and some applications might not even be practical. Some developers have expressed concerns that JavaScriptAudioNode *only* happens in workers. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 19:19:19 UTC