- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:15 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415
mage@opera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mage@opera.com
--- Comment #4 from mage@opera.com 2012-06-11 15:00:14 UTC ---
While I agree that workers are slightly more cumbersome to work with than
regular callbacks, I think that there are some risks with supporting both
methods:
1) It's generally confusing to have two options for doing the same thing. It's
quite likely that developers will pick the "wrong" solution just because they
copied from an example or tutorial that used the alternative that wasn't
optimal for the actual use case at hand.
2) I suspect that the callback based approach will be more sensitive to
browser/system variations (e.g. different painting/event/animation
architectures), which means that it's more likely that someone will design an
app on his/hers system+browser combination of preference, and then it will
suffer from latency problems on another system+browser combination. This is
less likely to be the case if people are always forced to use workers, where
the problem should be less pronounced.
3) Since the non-worker option is generally simpler to grasp, it's more likely
to be used in more apps than it should.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 15:01:28 UTC