- 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