W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: [Minutes] Audio WG teleconference 18 June 2015

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:00:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqVHMtuBU-Qj-qfyKs5oa_SRh+iMk640BwtfD0Y8VqqwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>
Cc: Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
1) Yes, this isn't a Web Worker - at least, not per AudioWorker instance,
they are more of an AudioGlobalScope.  The entire audio thread for an
AudioContext probably *IS* a WebWorker (or at least quite similar).  If we
want to call it something else, as per previous discussion, make a
suggestion, I'm open.  CustomAudioProcessor?

2) Yeah, I'd love to use the "native can load dynamic code without
glitching" metric too.  My guidance from Alex and V8 team was that although
this (parsing/compile on a different thread) may happen in the future in a
generic way, it simply isn't possible today in the JS environment.  If/when
it were to happen, one could implement AudioWorkers that work that way.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 4. AudioWorker Progress
>>
>> Chris has discussed issue #532 with Alex Russell of the TAG. No
>> particular outcomes there but Chris has also found that there seems to be
>> little prospect of having script loading and execution run in some thread
>> other than the audio thread, meaning that loading up AudioWorkers will
>> inevitably cause glitching as scripts are initialize.  This is not a
>> showstopper though: the feature is still incredibly useful and important;
>> it just means that scripts should be loaded either as part of app
>> initialization or while audio is quiescent.
>>
>> Need Paul's input on this, and determination of best way forward to
>> create a reasonable definition of AudioWorker (perhaps still not a Worker,
>> fundamentally) so pushed back on Needs WG Review.
>>
>> @padenot can you please chime on on this subject via email?
>>
>
>
> Yeah well I'm not happy about that. I'll be talking to some people this
> week. Also, yes, this is not really a worker at this point.
>
> My current thinking is that native can load dynamic code without
> glitching, so Web Audio API should be able to do the same.
>
> Paul.
>
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 07:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 07:01:10 UTC