W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 22432] Allow SourceBuffer.appendBuffer to take ownership of the ArrayBuffer

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:08:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22432-2486-RjV2gObvYT@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |acolwell@google.com,
                   |                            |kbr@google.com
           Assignee|adrianba@microsoft.com      |acolwell@google.com

--- Comment #1 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> ---
Aside from WebAudio there doesn't appear to be any other precedent for
"unneutering" a buffer. I talked to Kenneth Russell, one of the Typed Array
spec editors, last week about this request and he did not seem very supportive
of adding the "unneutering" concept. I'm happy to add text to the MSE spec
explicitly pointing out that modifying the buffer while an appendBuffer()
operation is pending will lead to undefined behavior. I don't think we should
"neuter" and then "unneuter" during the append though since this would make all
ArrayBufferViews unavailable for reading during the append.

Here is the link to the brief discussion we had on the MediaTF telecon call two
weeks ago. (http://www.w3.org/2013/09/24-html-media-minutes.html#item06)

FWIW it doesn't appear like Microsoft is going to modify their implementation
and at this point I don't see a large enough benefit to modify the Chromium
implementation. Also Chromium doesn't currently have the ability to "unneuter"
ArrayBuffers so it is unlikely that there is interop on this point even in the
WebAudio case.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 21:08:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:44 UTC