W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: "maplike" changes

From: Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:46:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGJqXNv-Wo52CbtWjUySpCaYq=2C8AtFPn0YkCNNS0K2k_FirA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Cc: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
Hello Joe,

This is an ah-ha moment for me:

> There was a secondary issue driving the maplikes, which was the inability
to override parameter or property getter methods in custom AWN subclasses
(since these are attached to AWN instances, not to any particular class).

Perhaps this is discussed at TPAC, because I honestly could not understand
how this map-like business has begun. With that said, can you provide an
example of the use case for me? I am not completely sure what this is
trying to achieve.

Also sendData() - ondata looks good to me as well. There is an implicit
association between the AWN/AWP pair, and we don't need to create an event
listener for this. I am wondering if we have other precedences of this
pattern else where in the web platform.

Best,
Hongchan

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:

> Hi Hongchan,
>
> I agree that we do not absolutely require the maplike pattern for
> properties -- what we require is something like
> postMessage-without-Transferables (and we'd need it anyway, maplikes or
> not).
>
> There was a secondary issue driving the maplikes, which was the inability
> to override parameter or property getter methods in custom AWN subclasses
> (since these are attached to AWN instances, not to any particular class).
> However, I believe this issue is only relevant to properties -- it does not
> make sense to me that someone would want to do this for AudioParams.
>
> Back to your question: I think the best method/event signature for the
> "lightweight data transfer" would be:
>
>     void sendData (any data);
>     attribute EventHandler     ondata;
>
> I prefer `sendData` to `sendEvent` because we are not sending an event: we
> are sending data, which *triggers* an event dispatched on the receiving
> object. At least, that's my view so far!
>
> Best,
>
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> President
> Noteflight LLC
>
> +1 978 314 6271 <(978)%20314-6271>
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Hongchan Choi <hongchan@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Joe,
>
> Please take a loot at this issue:
> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/988
>
> I don't think we have reached to a consensus yet. Paul expressed the
> concern about the performance of the map-like pattern, and I agree with
> him. With the assumption we ditch the map-like pattern, another issue is
> the method signature of it: `sendEvent()` is good? or should we just follow
> `postMessage()` without the transferrable?
>
> Sorry I have not been pushing this hard, but I will get back to the
> discussion next week.
>
> Best,
> Hongchan
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is anyone working on adding the parameters/properties maplikes to the spec
> for AWN/AWP, or can I take that on? It feels like an important piece of the
> AW framework to fill in.
>
> I probably would not get the IDL or ECMAScript pieces completely right but
> I am sure there is plenty of expert help on tap!
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> President
> Noteflight LLC
>
> +1 978 314 6271
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:47:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:47:23 UTC