I welcome this discussion and I agree with the independent functions/classes and also that we should provide low enough level hooks right in for the developers, this doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive of the high-level stuff. In general I feel we should watch out for bloat and try and establish a minimum viable 'product' as much as that makes sense in this context. Whether the cows get lost or not - they should be free to roam! :) Mark On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski < jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > >> Den 2012-05-23 01:46:06 skrev Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>: >> >> >> One question - "exposing the behaviour of built-in AudioNodes in a manner >>> that authors of JavaScriptAudioNodes can harness" sounds like subclassing >>> those nodes to me, which isn't the same thing as providing only >>> lower-level libraries (like FFT) and asking developers to do the hook-up >>> in JS nodes. What's the desire here? >>> >> >> I think the cleanest and most useful approach would be to provide >> functions/classes independent of the Audio API, so that you can use it in >> any way you want, including applications other than audio. For instance, >> compare this to how typed arrays originally emerged from WebGL (it was a >> requirement for making WebGL work), but has found wide-spread use in many >> other applications too. >> >> /Marcus >> > > My thoughts exactly. >
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:35:22 UTC