- From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:25:21 -0400
- To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
- Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANTur_4+kyy_kmxz1VwOXHvJKsBNTFj-ktPtsEfP1DZ4xuhMtA@mail.gmail.com>
Does that mean that you now agree that we should neuter it? :-) -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The downside of that approach is that the UA will accept code which >> doesn't do what they intended, such as: >> >> shaper.curve = new Float32Array(100); >> for (var i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { >> // oops, at this point the array has been internally copied, >> // and while the code below doesn't throw an exception, >> // it effectively sets the curve property to an all-0 array, >> // which is not what the author has intended. >> shaper.curve[i] = whatever; >> } >> >> I think this would be a terrible API. >> > > Agreed, that's a good point. Then lets not copy the array. > > >> >> For reusing the ArrayBuffer, the author can just read the curve property >> again and get a copy back which they can use for other purposes... >> >> -- >> Ehsan >> <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> >> >> >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> The current WebKit implementation of this node is racy, since the >>>> processing code only protects against simultaneous setting of the curve >>>> property, not against modifying the contents of the ArrayBuffer. >>>> >>>> In the Gecko implementation, I'm just copying the contents of the array >>>> upon setting curve for now, but I think a better fix would be to neuter the >>>> contents of the array, and provide a copy of the original contents of the >>>> array if contents reads the curve property again. >>>> >>>> Does this make sense? >>>> >>> >>> I much prefer an internal copy, and that can even be optimized as a fast >>> pointer swap. I don't like the idea of harming the ArrayBuffer so that it >>> can't be used again. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> -- >>>> Ehsan >>>> <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 22:26:30 UTC