- From: James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:56:36 +0200
- To: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
- CC: public-audio@w3.org, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Hi Jussi, Thanks for the swift reply! Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and the answer makes me very happy! :-) best, James > Hi James, > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de > <mailto:j.ingram@netcologne.de>> wrote: > > Hi Chris, all, > > Congratulations on the First Public Working Draft of the Web MIDI > API. Looks good to me, but I have a question: > > Does adding an extra ECMAScript attribute to a MIDIMessage cause > any problems for the underlying system? I've tried to find the > answer to this question in the referenced documents, but without > success. > > > If I understand you correctly, you mean like: > > var msg = {data: new Uint8Array([...])} > msg.customStuff = "stuff" > // Do something with the msg, and eventually send it > output.send(msg) > > In that case, no. The parsing of a WebIDL `dictionary` (MIDIMessage is > specified as one) works by extracting only the meaningful data (as in > the specified properties) out of the JS (or other) object it's given. > If you someday hit an implementation of the Web MIDI API where there > are adverse effects for this, you probably have to file a bug against > that implementation. ;) > > In my current, working (Jazz plug-in) application [1], some > MIDIMessages are given an extra attribute, without producing any > adverse effects, but I'd like to be sure that this is okay in the > Web MIDI API as well. > > > Cheers, > Jussi > > All the best, > James >
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:57:18 UTC