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

Re: [web-audio-api] (JSWorkers): ScriptProcessorNode processing in workers (#113)

From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:29:49 -0700
To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/113/24244400@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415#17) by Chris Rogers on W3C Bugzilla. Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:49:06 GMT

(In reply to [comment #17](#issuecomment-24244393))
> (In reply to [comment #16](#issuecomment-24244388))
> > (In reply to [comment #15](#issuecomment-24244385))
> > > In any event, this does strike me as a show-stopper for having audio processing
> > > in workers.
> > 
> > As Philip pointed out: should read "this does NOT strike me as a show-stopper"
> > ;)
> 
> All right, I'm running out of points to defend my case, especially since I
> don't have a horse of my own in the race. :) And if it's one or the other, I
> prefer the audio processing is done only in workers instead of the main thread
> (obviously), but I still think it'd be wise to have both.

I agree with Jussi.  Quite honestly it's a lot simpler for developers to have access to the complete JS state while doing the processing.  If people are willing to work with larger buffer sizes, then quite reasonable things can be done in the main thread.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/113#issuecomment-24244400
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:30:25 UTC

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