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

Re: New name for "AudioWorker"

From: Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:49:54 +0300
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>, "public-audio@w3.org Group" <public-audio@w3.org>, Shane Stephens <shanestephens@google.com>, Ian Vollick <vollick@chromium.org>, Ian Kilpatrick <ikilpatrick@google.com>
Message-ID: <56154D32.8010503@pettay.fi>
On 10/07/2015 07:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I'm actually off-the-cuff against trying to boil the ocean of the general pattern.  This is pretty specific - the new thing , runs *IN* something that
> can be a Worker-like process, but they're expected to share the process.  The thing you can instantiate lots of (runtime contexts?) run inside that
> process.
>
> I was expecting we would rename AW to CustomAudioProcessor, still define them as running inside a Worker (and define how that Worker-sharing works),
> and use Worker messaging.  That seemed like the shortest path to success.

You probably don't want Worker messaging semantics given that it brings in Worker's event loop and asynchronous messaging.
I thought Web Audio's off-the-main-thread-processing would need something more synchronous (possibly process things similarly to microtasks??) and
something way more simpler than Workers.


-Olli


>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com <mailto:hongchan@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     Nothing forces workers to be heavy weight, but doesn't it have the assumption that it runs on its own thread? What we want is to be able to throw
>     JS code into VM that runs on the audio thread.
>
>     Perhaps we can break that assumption, and propose a new type of Worker.
>
>     On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:09 AM Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com <mailto:slightlyoff@google.com>> wrote:
>
>         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 <mailto: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 16:50:26 UTC

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