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

Re: New name for "AudioWorker"

From: Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:12:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGJqXNtsL0Y5dCpj5+CPmSfP0a=f4XngEN0w0pbiO5GAJ1zjQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>, "public-audio@w3.org Group" <public-audio@w3.org>
So glad you got the ball rolling!

This came up few times on our GitHub issue tracker, once I suggested the
name "CustomAudioProcessor". I liked that you chose the word "Processor"
but it needs to be identifiable a bit more.

Interestingly enough, there are many people working on the similar idea but
in different areas. I found two examples on the web.

- CompositorWorker
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/18GGuTRGnafai17PDWjCHHAvFRsCfYUDYsi720sVPkws/edit>
(aka
UI Worker)
- Project Houdini <https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-paint-api/#example-1>
(aka CSS Worker)

I believe they are in the same ball park:
- Runs off-main-thread. (or only runs on a target thread)
- Handles micro task for a specific purpose compare to Workers.
- Specialized to one domain.

It might be beneficial for us to have a look at their progress and try to
organize our ideas without diverging too much. In Chromium project, these
two teams are also interested in what Audio WG will come up with. As Alex
pointed out, we should definitely collaborate with other people who works
on the same idea.

Lastly, it seems like we all (UI/CSS/Audio) are starting to realize that
what we are dealing with is not a Worker. So I think it is the perfect
timing to propose a more appropriate (and appealing) name.


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:52 AM 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 16:13:28 UTC

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