- From: Ian Ni-Lewis <ilewis@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:59:50 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, public-audio@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTimK9-DJ_Bt2EYE+uE7S+ENUsO7yBw@mail.gmail.com>
You guys realize we're reinventing DirectShow, right? ;-) On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote: > >> Rob, I'm afraid I'll just have to strongly disagree. The Stream API is >> designed specially for peer-to-peer communication. Superficially it has >> sources and sinks of data like the Web Audio API, but if you really read >> both specs carefully their design goals are quite distinct. The Web Audio >> API has had a great deal of care in its design to address a variety of use >> cases for client side games, music, and interactive applications. The >> Stream API does not replace its functionality. Does it have the concept of >> intermediate processing modules, routing graphs, implicit unity gain summing >> junctions, fanout support, channel mix-up and mix-down, sample-accurate >> timing, among many other design features? -- no it does not. > > > Indeed. And the Web Audio API does not have support for capturing local > audio, recording and compressing processed audio, or sending processed audio > over the network (and we have only a sketch for how it might handle A/V > synchronization). We need fix to these deficiencies in both specs by > bringing them together somehow. > > If we persist with the approach that Web Audio handles one set of use-cases > and Streams handle a different set of use-cases, we'll be making life > unnecessarily difficult for authors whose use-cases need features from both > specs. See for example the scenarios here: > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/MediaStreamAPI#Scenarios > At least #3, #4, #5, and #6 require functionality that is currently split > across both proposals --- and I'm sure people can think of more creative > ways to mix and match features. > > These are both only proposals. Now is the time to make changes to avoid > future problems. This is why we have a standards process. > > The Web Audio API has implementations, working examples and demos, showing >> it to be viable in solving the problems it was designed for. The Stream API >> is in a much earlier stage, and although I believe it will be successful for >> what it was designed, it's extremely unlikely that we'll be seeing it >> running the same kinds of audio applications as the Web Audio API. > > > In its current form, yes. But I see no fundamental reason why the > functionality of the Web Audio API can't be provided by modifying and > extending the Streams proposal. > > Another option would be to merge Streams functionality into Web Audio, but > since Streams need to contain video, at least the nomenclature would need to > change. > > > Rob > -- > "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for > they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures > every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11] > -- Ian Ni-Lewis Developer Advocate Google Game Developer Relations
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 23:00:34 UTC