W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: New name for "AudioWorker"

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:07:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CANr5HFUwcww1KYb=w7QkdLpENt8bnXBBTF0v0kQbD9whepMRMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>
Cc: "public-audio@w3.org Group" <public-audio@w3.org>, Shane Stephens <shanestephens@google.com>, Ian Vollick <vollick@chromium.org>, Ian Kilpatrick <ikilpatrick@google.com>
Why isn't this thing a worker? What forces workers to be heavyweight?

Also, would be good to align with the Houdini folks on this as they're
proposing similar things in the rendering and compositing space.

Regards
On 7 Oct 2015 7:52 a.m., "Paul Adenot" <padenot@mozilla.com> wrote:

> We need to decide for a new name for something that:
>
> - Runs off-main-thread
> - Has access to a very limited set of APIs
> - Can be instantiated a lot of times in the same document (much more than
> Workers can or would)
> - Is specialized to one domain (audio, video, etc.)
> - ... ?
>
> It is likely that we would be the first group to spec something like this,
> but it would be used by other groups (layout people, video/image processing
> folks, etc.). We need something that is not too tied to audio, or can be
> adapted. I propose "Processor", which conveys the meaning of taking
> something as input, applying a transformation, and outputting it. I'm very
> open to suggestions though, this is merely to get the ball rolling.
>
> Thoughts ?
> Paul.
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 16:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 18 December 2015 09:00:35 UTC