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

Re: Audio Workers - please review

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:25:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CANr5HFUy1oHbMq6brbzeQAz-yc3ytqA-M+yD2B_Zx=zre9nw3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>
Cc: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, public-audio@w3.org, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
On 10 Sep 2014 10:03, "Olli Pettay" <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2014 08:00 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>> I see. It should be removed in favor of fetch().
>
>
> Why?
>
> (But that is off topic to this wg.)

Because synchronous == bad.

>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi <mailto:
olli@pettay.fi>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 09/10/2014 07:48 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>>              e) The topic of whether or not synchronous APIs must be
allowed on workers is being debated on public-script-coord, and it seems
like
>>         there is no
>>              consensus on that yet.  But I find the possibility of
running synchronous XHR on the audio processing thread unacceptable for
example,
>>         given its
>>              realtime requirements.
>>
>>
>>         You should remove XHR and, if anything, only surface fetch.
Actually, it was my recollection taht XHR isn't in the base interface for
workers.
>>         Is that
>>         wrong?:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/__web-apps/current-work/__multipage/workers.html#apis-__available-to-workers
>>         <
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#apis-available-to-workers
>
>>
>>
>>     http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#__interface-xmlhttprequest <
http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-xmlhttprequest>
>>
>>     I can see Exposed=Worker there.
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:26:15 UTC

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