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

Re: [Minutes] Audio WG teleconference 18 June 2015

From: Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:25:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGJqXNsWY7EkoXrRWtQ2FEi8Hjc8pE0VbPOpxATC+XPydatYCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
Hello Joe,

Just to clarify - are we having the next conference on 7/2? On Google's
side, it is a corporate holiday and Ray is on vacation as well.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Same here, this week is the Mozilla Summit in Vancouver, I doubt I'll be
> able to have something written. That said, I'm planning to talk to a lot of
> javascript engine and spec people this week, I'll probably have a better
> understanding of the situation and possibilities by the end of the week.
>
> Paul.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:
>
>> Understood. Maybe Paul will be able to pull together a more complete
>> response to the current proposal, which will help us keep things moving.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I sincerely doubt I can make that.  I'm currently at a week-long summit
>>> meeting, followed by a couple days of vacation, will likely still be
>>> jetlagged at next telcon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is good dialogue -- it would be great if we could be at (or very
>>>> close to) a more wrapped-up patch to the spec by the date of the next
>>>> telcon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh I thought it was a spec issue, for the parse/compile
>>>>> off-main-thread thing. I'm pretty sure Gecko and IE do off-main-thread
>>>>> parse and compile already, so that might not be an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last I checked, the Worker spec was quite explicit about
>>>>> parsing/compiling script on the same thread as the worker. I'll ask
>>>>> questions to make sure we're reading and understanding the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also yes, I'll try to think about a name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>>>>
>>>> *Joe Berkovitz*
>>>> President
>>>>
>>>> *Noteflight LLC*
>>>> 49R Day Street / Somerville, MA 02144 / USA
>>>> phone: +1 978 314 6271
>>>> www.noteflight.com
>>>> "Your music, everywhere"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>>
>> *Joe Berkovitz*
>> President
>>
>> *Noteflight LLC*
>> 49R Day Street / Somerville, MA 02144 / USA
>> phone: +1 978 314 6271
>> www.noteflight.com
>> "Your music, everywhere"
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 16:26:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 June 2015 16:26:38 UTC