On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 1. None of the presented solution proposals make it necessary to perform >> a memcpy in all cases. >> 2. Such audio editing application need to handle the case where they >> don't have enough system memory at any rate in a graceful way. There are >> many devices out there which can run modern web browsers but still have >> 256MB of RAM, which means that even in the current world, this application >> cannot keep the entire content of the song in memory at all times. Such >> solutions can involve things such as storing PCM content in Indexed DB and >> only load parts of it into memory for processing at a given point in time. >> > > We don't want to exacerbate an already difficult situation on these > devices. You can't just say that these devices are low on memory already, > so why don't we waste a large amount more memory causing very visible > performance degradations! > I don't think that's a fair characterization of what Ehsan said. I'd say it this way: the difference between being able to edit 10 minutes of audio vs 20 minutes is much less significant then being able to edit 10 minutes vs 1000 minutes. We need to ensure it's not too hard to achieve the latter, and if we do, the former is uninteresting. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 00:28:17 UTC