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.

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