Re: AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer how to work it.

That would be my suggestion, yes.  Others should weigh in, though.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, KeonHo Kim <keonho07.kim@samsung.com>wrote:

> @Chris Wilson.
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarification.
>
> Can I expect one of future draft will be tried to included more explicit
> description about this issue.?
>
> According to your opinion below 4 cases should throw exception. My
> understanding is correct ? J
>
>
>
> < case1 >
> sourcenode.buffer = null;
> sourcenode.start(0);
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // Exception “It has been tried to
> set buffer after AudioBufferSourceNode is already started.”
>
>
>
> < case2 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer;
> sourcenode.start(0);
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = null; // Exception “It has been tried to set buffer
> after AudioBufferSourceNode is already started.”
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // Exception “It has been tried to
> set buffer after AudioBufferSourceNode is already started.”
>
>
>
> < case 3 >
> sourcenode.start(0);
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // Exception “It has been tried to
> set buffer after AudioBufferSourceNode is already started.”
>
>
>
> < case 5 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound buffer1
>
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2; // Exception “It has been tried to
> set buffer after AudioBufferSourceNode is already started.”
>
>
>
> Br,
>
> KeonHo
>
> *From:* Chris Wilson [mailto:cwilso@google.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:48 AM
> *To:* KeonHo Kim
> *Cc:* Raymond Toy; public-audio@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer how to work it.
>
>
>
> "null" refers to the Javascript null object; perhaps we need to be more
> explicit about that.
>
>
>
> I have no idea why any implementation would re-start the buffer once it's
> already playing; personally, I think we should explicitly ignore setting
> the buffer once it has been set.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:51 PM, KeonHo Kim <keonho07.kim@samsung.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-03-13 3:01 GMT+09:00 Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com>:
>
> I think I'm confused.  The spec says:
>
>
>
> The number of channels of the output always equals the number of channels
> of the AudioBuffer assigned to the .buffer attribute, or is one channel of
> silence if .buffer is NULL.
>
>
>
> I had interpreted NULL to mean 0. But there's also the Javascript object
> null.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what the spec is saying now, so my comments on your examples
> maybe be all wrong.
>
>
>
> Khno> "or is one channel of silence if .buffer is NULL."
>
> I believe that is Javascript object null. That was mentioned a nullable
> buffer in this code reivew.
>
> If it is not common word expression "nullable", I sorry make you confused.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/190953005/
>
>
>
> In my investigation, source.buffer =0; returns
>
> FF TypeError : "Value being assigned to AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer is
> not an object"
>
> Chrome TypeError : "Failed to set the 'buffer' property on
> 'AudioBufferSourceNode': The provided value is not of type 'AudioBuffer'."
>
>
>
> source.buffer = null; returns
>
> FF : Fine.
>
> Chrome TypeError: "Failed to set the 'buffer' property on
> 'AudioBufferSourceNode': buffer cannot be null."
>
>
>
> I would like to fix this one on chrome, setting a nullable buffer.
>
>
>
> One second thoughts, "there was no "when" which could control accurate
> timing on setting a buffer at source node that was already started.",
>
> I think we should consider about implementation separately between
> AudioBufferSourceNode and AudioBuffer.
>
> The "when" in start() or stop()  is specific time
> for AudioBufferSourceNode, NOT a buffer's start or stop timing.
>
> If JS developers want to make two sound stream with different timing, they
> should have created two AudioBufferSourceNode as you know.
>
> But, AudioBufferSourceNode should be able to play any AudioBuffers even if
> there is changing of AudioBuffer on runtime
>
> until finishing to render current AudioBuffers(no loop attributes in
> sourceNode) or intentional calling stop().
>
>
>
> In AudioBufferSourceNode perspective, if there is a current buffer which
> is not reached duration time, it must be running if there is no calling a
> stop(0 or AudioContext.currentTime).
>
> In addition, if there is stop(AudioContext.currentTime + 20sec), Node must
> be running until end time.
>
> According to https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/15, the
> spec has been changed to allow calling a stop() multiple times differently
> with start().
>
> "Discussion results: last-called stop() should take effect, i.e. an
> overwrite of the last stop(). Multiple stop() invokes should not throw,
> even if the playback has already stopped."
>
>
>
> It means JS developer can make stopping a AudioBufferSourceNode delay with
> overwrite stop() with new "when".
>
>
>
> In spec,
>
> The stop method
>
> Schedules a sound to stop playback at an exact time.
>
> The *when* parameter describes at what time (in seconds) the sound should
> stop playing. It is in the same time coordinate system as
> AudioContext.currentTime. If 0 is passed in for this value or if the value
> is less than*currentTime*, then the sound will stop playing immediately
>
>
>
> So, it mentioned AudioContext.currentTime. The "when" is based
> on AudioContext.currentTime. It means JS developer should call start or
> stop with "AudioContext.currentTime + delta".
>
> This kind of description supports that "when" is meaningful for
> AudioBufferSourceNode's life cycle and scheduling, NOT a buffer.
>
>
>
> I think that FF is working properly below 5 test cases.
> https://codereview.chromium.org/190953005/, it is giving same behavior to
> Chrome as FF do except case 5.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:42 PM, KeonHo Kim <keonho07.kim@samsung.com
> > wrote:
>
>
> 2014-03-12 2:31 GMT+09:00 Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:03 AM, KeonHo Kim <keonho07.kim@samsung.com
> > wrote:
>
> Dear All.
>
>
>
> If there is setting a buffer of AudioBufferSourceNode, how it should work?
>
> I think that AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer should be able to set buffer
> anytime whatever the node is playing or not.
>
> I believe if all cases are able to JS developer, it is fantastic.
>
>
>
> I think that in all of the cases below, you don't have sample accurate
> timing. The sound for meaningfulbuffer will start at some uncontrolled time
> after setting the buffer.  I think in all cases you can get the effect you
> want by just creating a new AudioBufferSourceNode with the appropriate
> buffer and calling start and stop appropriately.
>
>
>
> Chris Rogers certainly intended that AudioBufferSourceNodes to be cheap to
> create and use.
>
>
>
> Khno> I'm getting clear what he intended from discussion with you. I agree
> with you.
>
> There is no "when" which can control accurate timing.
>
> Don't we need to mention "setBuffer() must be called before calling
> start()" such like this?.
>
> I think that will be helpful for developer.
>
>
>
>
>
> < case1 >
> sourcenode.buffer = null;
> sourcenode.start(0); // mute
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> This case is, I think, currently supported, but I find it's behavior odd
> because the sound will start at some uncontrolled time.
>
>
>
> Khno> Actually, chrome returns domexception "ailed to set the 'buffer'
> property on 'AudioBufferSourceNode': buffer cannot be null" on sourcenode.buffer
> = null;
>
> Firefox is not.
>
> < case2 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = null; // mute
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> I think this is better done by calling sourcenode.stop() instead of
> setting the buffer to null.  Then create a new new node with
> meaningfulbuffer.
>
>
>
> Khno> Yes, it is better approach to keep idea that Chris Rogers intent.
>
> < case 3 >
> sourcenode.start(0);
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> I think this is the same as case 1
>
>
>
> Khno> Firefox and Chrome work fine both.
>
> < case 4 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound
>
>
>
> This is the normal case.
>
>
>
> Khno> Firefox and Chrome work fine both.
>
> < case 5 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound buffer1
>
> …
>
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2; // sound buffer2
>
>
>
> I don't know how that is supposed to work, especially since start() is
> only allowed to be called once for each AudioBufferSourceNode.  Even if you
> allowed more than one call, I still don't know how this is supposed to
> behave.
>
>
>
>
>
> Khno> Firefox and chrome are different.
>
>
>
> In FF
>
> If there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1" then start(0), play meaningfulbuffer1
> from begin of buffer.
>
> Then, if there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2", sound changed
> to meaningfulbuffer2 from begin of buffer.
>
> Then, if there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1" again, play meaningfulbuffer1
> from middle of buffer when "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2" was
> called.
>
>
>
> In Chrome
>
> If there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1" then start(0), play meaningfulbuffer1
> from begin of buffer.
>
> Then, if there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2", sound changed
> to meaningfulbuffer2 from begin of buffer.
>
> Then, if there is "sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1" again, play meaningfulbuffer1
> from begin of buffer.
>
>
>
> If a JS developer can not do setting buffer multiple times or not allow
> setting buffer after calling start() once, FF and Chrome have wrong
> behavior both.
>
> How do you think this case ? Need to notify "Buffer can not be set more
> than once" ?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In spec, nullable buffer is existed which has mono channel silence can
> help making source muted to AudioBufferSourceNode without stop().
>
> If setting buffer or calling start() is allowed more than once,
> AudioBufferSourceNode can be reused.
>
>
>
> Is there any confirmed change about calling start() multiple times?
>
>
>
>
>
> However, it also has some issue.
>
> “The spec doesn't say, but the buffer attribute of an
> AudioBufferSourceNode should probably be only settable once.
>
> If you've started the source node and change the buffer while the previous
> buffer is playing, you have no control over when the new source starts.”
>
> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/288
>
>
>
> Please feel free to give your opinion and correct way for Web Audio API.
>
>
>
> Br,
>
> Khno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Raymond Toy [mailto:rtoy@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:32 AM
> *To:* KeonHo Kim
> *Cc:* public-audio@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer how to work it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:03 AM, KeonHo Kim <keonho07.kim@samsung.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear All.
>
>
>
> If there is setting a buffer of AudioBufferSourceNode, how it should work?
>
> I think that AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer should be able to set buffer
> anytime whatever the node is playing or not.
>
> I believe if all cases are able to JS developer, it is fantastic.
>
>
>
> I think that in all of the cases below, you don't have sample accurate
> timing. The sound for meaningfulbuffer will start at some uncontrolled time
> after setting the buffer.  I think in all cases you can get the effect you
> want by just creating a new AudioBufferSourceNode with the appropriate
> buffer and calling start and stop appropriately.
>
>
>
> Chris Rogers certainly intended that AudioBufferSourceNodes to be cheap to
> create and use.
>
>
>
> < case1 >
> sourcenode.buffer = null;
> sourcenode.start(0); // mute
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> This case is, I think, currently supported, but I find it's behavior odd
> because the sound will start at some uncontrolled time.
>
> < case2 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = null; // mute
> ...
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> I think this is better done by calling sourcenode.stop() instead of
> setting the buffer to null.  Then create a new new node with
> meaningfulbuffer.
>
>
>
> < case 3 >
> sourcenode.start(0);
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer; // sound
>
>
>
> I think this is the same as case 1
>
> < case 4 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound
>
>
>
> This is the normal case.
>
> < case 5 >
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer1;
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound buffer1
>
> …
>
> sourcenode.buffer = meaningfulbuffer2;
>
> sourcenode.start(0); // sound buffer2
>
>
>
> I don't know how that is supposed to work, especially since start() is
> only allowed to be called once for each AudioBufferSourceNode.  Even if you
> allowed more than one call, I still don't know how this is supposed to
> behave.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In spec, nullable buffer is existed which has mono channel silence can
> help making source muted to AudioBufferSourceNode without stop().
>
> If setting buffer or calling start() is allowed more than once,
> AudioBufferSourceNode can be reused.
>
>
>
> Is there any confirmed change about calling start() multiple times?
>
>
>
>
>
> However, it also has some issue.
>
> “The spec doesn't say, but the buffer attribute of an
> AudioBufferSourceNode should probably be only settable once.
>
> If you've started the source node and change the buffer while the previous
> buffer is playing, you have no control over when the new source starts.”
>
> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/288
>
>
>
> Please feel free to give your opinion and correct way for Web Audio API.
>
>
>
> Br,
>
> Khno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>