- From: Srikumar Subramanian <srikumarks@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:27:17 +0530
- To: Stuart Memo <stuartmemo@gmail.com>
- Cc: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5906703730479044893@unknownmsgid>
I believe the stand taken by the group regarding such higher level constructs is that they should be handled by a JS library and not be part of the spec. A de facto standard may happen if this is a common requirement. Given how small the GraphNode function is to provide the necessary abstraction, such objects can be expected to interoperate without much difficulty. Best, Kumar On 17-Dec-2012, at 11:38 PM, Stuart Memo <stuartmemo@gmail.com> wrote: Many thanks for this Kumar. That's great as an interim measure, but I feel that there should be some sort of standard way of doing this. Without a way of wrapping up nodes, sharing created effects or managing large projects becomes much more difficult. Thoughts? On 17 Dec 2012 06:36, "Srikumar Subramanian" <srikumarks@gmail.com> wrote: > You may find the GraphNode maker function in the linked file useful. It > makes an object that mimics the connect/disconnect functions of an > AudioNode, while supporting GraphNode objects, AudioNodes and AudioParams > as connection targets. > > https://github.com/srikumarks/steller/blob/master/steller.js > > The "function GraphNode..." is standalone. > > Best, > -Kumar > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 4:33 AM, Stuart Memo <stuartmemo@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm struggling to find a decent solution to packaging a group of nodes > together in a way that can be used similarly to native nodes. For example, > the recent Jam with Chrome article on html5rocks does this : > > var MyCustomNode = function(){ > this.input = audioContext.createGainNode(); > var output = audioContext.createGainNode(); > > this.connect = function(target){ > output.connect(target); > }; > }; > > Which means you have to connect to a node like so: > > gain.connect(customNode.input); > > Which is bananas! By having to specify '.input', it breaks the standard > way of connecting nodes. Is there a better way of doing this? If not, is it > worth discussing a way of packaging groups of nodes in a standard way? > > Thanks! > - Stuart > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 06:02:21 UTC