W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Call for Consensus: retire current ScriptProcessorNode design & AudioWorker proposal

From: Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:43 -0400
Message-Id: <8624AA32-243A-4DC7-B2D4-2BECAB6B7A4E@noteflight.com>
Cc: Andrew Vermie <andrew.vermie@gmail.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
This was my feeling too -- on the call last week I made the same proposal to avoid any reuse of the old names. 

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President
Noteflight LLC
+1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere."

> On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> 
> I think there was some rough consensus on the call last week to make a clean break.
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Vermie <andrew.vermie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the advantages of introducing the new spec under the old API names (createScriptProcessor + ScriptProcessorNode), rather than creating a new API for this proposal and deprecating the old API?
>> 
>> As a developer working on a project with Web Audio API, I think it would be less disruptive to have a clean break with the old API.  Thoughts?
>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>>> That is precisely why I highlighted this risk.
>>> 
>>> ScriptProcessors are certainly used today.  I don't think it's horrific to consider switching it over (and then off), but I do think it will take a concerted, cooperative effort to do so.  I think at the very least Mozilla and Chrome (and ideally Safari, too) would need to support the new version in roughly the same timeframe, would need to throw a "deprecation warning", and would need to have a concerted plan to shut off the old version in roughly the same timeframe, too.  Oh, and make sure IE doesn't support the old one at all.  :)
>>> 
>>> We are getting a fair bit of heat for turning off old bits in Chrome, so believe me, I'm not taking this lightly.  I just think the previous incarnation is very bad.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>>> How can we remove the current ScriptProcessorNode from the spec? My understanding is that quite a few sites and applications depend on it.
>>>> 
>>>> Rob
>>>> -- 
>>>> oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
>>>> owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
>>>> osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo
>>>> osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso
>>>> oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo
>>>> osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo
>>>> otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 01:46:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:14 UTC