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

Re: Audio Workers - please review

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:51:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqU-3dAkVJnWRWDv3pSz+023OhrSmQXeUCz=iT8GkHGc3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norbert Schnell <Norbert.Schnell@ircam.fr>
Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
I don't know how it is possible to do this, unless all WA changes are
batched up into a single postMessage.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Norbert Schnell <Norbert.Schnell@ircam.fr>
wrote:

> On 11 sept. 2014, at 15:41, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> > I think this is actually indefinite in the spec today - and needs to
> be.  "start(0)" (in fact, any "start(n)" where n is <
> audiocontext.currentTime) is catch as catch can; thread context switch may
> happen, and that needs to be okay.  Do we guarantee that:
> >
> > node1.start(0);
> > ...some really time-expensive processing steps...
> > node2.start(0);
> > will have synchronized start times?
>
> IMHO, it would be rather important that these two really go off at the
> same time :
>
> var now = audioContext.currentTime;
> node1.start(now);
> ...some really time-expensive
> node2.start(now);
>
> ... unless we can well define what "really time-expensive" means and the
> ability to avoid it.
> Is that actually case? I was never sure about this...
>
> Evidently it could be sympathetic if everything <
> audioContext.currentTime could just be clipped and behave accordingly. That
> would make things pretty clear and 0 synonymous to "now", which feels right.
>
> Norbert
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 14:52:09 UTC

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