Re: Sites using webkitAudioContext only

I would actually strongly suggest that developers use a monkey patch
library, like my paired set:

https://github.com/cwilso/AudioContext-MonkeyPatch: This library should be
used for new projects, which are written to the official Web Audio
specification, and it should monkey-patch the calls on systems that may not
support the most modern definitions (e.g. patching AudioContext to
webkitAudioContext, and start() calls get patched to call noteOn()).  You
could use this, for example, to get a properly written Web Audio app to
work on iOS today.

https://github.com/cwilso/webkitAudioContext-MonkeyPatch: This library can
be used for old apps, written to webkitAudioContext implementations, to get
them working on proper spec-compliant implementations of AudioContext (e.g.
Firefox), without having to rewrite all your code.  This is kind of a cheap
way to do this (obviously, for any significant app you should likely revise
your code), but it makes it quick and easy to get old code working on
Firefox if nothing else.

The big reason for not evangelizing the use of (AudioContext ||
webkitAudioContext) is that it actually makes it *harder* to consider
changing names (between webkitAudioContext and AudioContext), as the
developers will just patch that in, and won't think about finer-grained
changes later on.  Monkey-patch libraries can be updated independently,
though.

(As an aside - I'd love help testing and evangelizing these libraries.  Or,
if someone wants to take them over I'm happy to have that happen too.)

-Chris


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Chris Lowis <chris.lowis@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Robert O'Callahan writes:
> > There's no reason not to evangelize the use of (AudioContext ||
> > webkitAudioContext) immediately.
>
> I've been doing that a little bit - sending patches to code on Github
> that I find. More specifically I've been suggesting that people use
> Chris W's
>
>   https://github.com/cwilso/AudioContext-MonkeyPatch
>
> So that they can write code "per spec" but have it work on
> vendor-prefixed implementations.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>