W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: [web-audio-api] WaveTable is poorly named (#170)

From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:30:08 -0700
To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/170/24244656@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19561#2) by Marcus Geelnard (Opera) on W3C Bugzilla. Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:16:12 GMT

I think I'm with Chris Wilson here. I find it a bit counterintuitive to have "Wave" in the name at all, since to me, a wave is a time domain thing but the WaveTable object holds frequency domain data (it's the OscillatorNode that produces the wave, not the WaveTable object).

More precisely, the data held in the object is the Fourier series of a periodic wave, but I guess PeriodicWaveFourierSeries is a bit too wordy to be practical?

As usual, interface naming is about the hardest thing you can do in computer science ;)

Here's another thought: You could treat the WaveTable object in a way that is independent of frequency/time domain. For instance, if the interface provided a way to set the object state from a time domain signal as well as from a frequency domain signal, and let it be up to the implementation to choose how to store the data internally (could be frequency domain for hi quality synthesis or time domain for low quality synthesis), and use FFT/IFFT internally for the setters, as appropriate for the implementation.

If so, I think "PeriodicWave" would be a very fitting name.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/170#issuecomment-24244656
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:31:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:11 UTC