W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2012

[Bug 17415] (JSWorkers): JavaScriptAudioNode processing in workers

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:56:03 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Sgh7L-0005b5-1O@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #20 from Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> 2012-06-18 18:56:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> If so, then "larger buffer sizes" should be a hard requirement. On my fairly
> powerful desktop computer a layout could block for at least 871 ms. The closest
> power-of-two at 48Khz is 65536, i.e. over a second. With that amount of latency
> it doesn't seems very useful.

What? Why would it be a hard limit? Hard limits aren't very future-friendly.
Should setTimeout have a minimum timeout limit of 871ms as well? Or

Developers have to be conscious about performance and avoiding layout reflows
anyway, why should this API be any different?

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 Monday, 18 June 2012 18:56:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:49:59 UTC