W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [Web MIDI API] Examples and a serializer

From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:14:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJhzemW2vHJ9yEY5cE54EBnahsPXO+vz0HzjJFxBOkkCDsRx1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>wrote:

> In "Getting Access to the MIDI System" and in "A Simple Loopback", it
> would be better if you just wrapped the code in a self invoking function.
> That way, you can avoid the whole discussion about avoiding globals:
> (function(){
> …example here...
> }());
> Also, please don't use if statements without curly braces… yes, it's part
> of JS, but every style guide recommends against doing this. It means code
> won't lint and can also lead to unforeseen errors.

Well, there are style guides for pretty much every imaginable way of doing
things... :D But I agree, if it goes to another line, wrap it in braces.

> Lastly, the "Enumerating Inputs and Outputs" example makes a strong use
> case for adding either a serializer [1] to the MIDIPort interface. It would
> be nice if the object serialized into a JSON compatible structure (i.e.,
> add toJSON compatibility). I think all that needs to be added to MIDIPort
> is:
> serializer = { id, manufacturer, name, type, version};

I'm pretty sure that conflicts with our current idea of how to add worker
support, i.e. making MIDI ports copyable / transferable via sendMessage(),
since if we added a serializer, sendMessage() would accept MIDIPorts
already, converting them to JSON objects, right?

Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 16:15:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:14 UTC