W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2012

[Bug 19803] "Fingerprint" is unclear

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:46:58 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-19803-5429-YZRjX8qaBT@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19803

--- Comment #14 from Chris Wilson <cwilso@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I need to actually try this to be sure, but for example the Windows MIDI API
> has the notion of device ID, which is actually a pointer to a HMIDIIN
> instance, and it seems that even if the port's index has changed, the ID
> stays the same, so you can actually see that port at index something has a
> pointer that's already associated to a fingerprint. But I need to figure out
> if this is true, and if something like this can be done on (at least) all
> desktop platforms. 

Hmm, yes.  Would have to see what happens with device IDs when doing the
unplugging dance.  I don't have a Windows instance handy or I'd test.


> It would be silly if you can't detect whether two midi
> port instances are actually pointing to the same port.

Well, we don't currently have a way to do that; I don't think we should be
saying that we'll return the same MIDIInput *instance*, for example, or people
are going to step on their own onmessage handlers.  Or we need to explicitly
say that.  Actually, we probably should explicitly say that either way.  Does
that make sense?

If we do make MIDIPorts have singular instances, I should point out that we
would NOT be able to make the equality work across Worker boundaries, if we
take that on.  Not sure it really matters.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 00:47:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:03 UTC