- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:14:18 -0700
- To: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>
- Cc: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com>, Russell McClellan <russell@motu.com>, WG <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqW4db7sH9Yw-+z_WWDMCk6PW9d_A1YRuyrJYQR16MJ-WA@mail.gmail.com>
First, I apologize for dropping this discussion for a couple of days - busy with other things, then got sick and dropped everything. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > In other words 2x memcpy of the buffer would amount to < 0.4% of the total > processing time, and that's for a very trivial operation (for more complex > processing, the memcpy would be even less noticeable). > As noted elsewhere - the performance is a minor concern compared to memory footprint and hoops-developers-have-to-jump-through. > True, this *might* be a problem, but if you're creating an app that even > comes close to using 50% of your available memory for audio buffers alone, > I'd say that you're in deep trouble anyway (I think it will be very hard to > make such an app work cross-platform). > I could easily write an app that works fine on a desktop, but is memory-contrained in mobile devices. In fact, here's another thought: With Jer's proposal an implementation is > no longer forced to using flat Float32 arrays internally, meaning that it > would be possible for an implementation to use various forms of compression > techniques for the AudioBuffers. For instance, on a low memory device you > could use 16-bit integers instead of 32-bit floats for the audio buffers, > which would *save* memory compared to the current design (which prevents > these kinds of memory optimizations). > THAT sounds like something that would create lots of cross-implementation behavior differences, and should be avoided. Or may that's just me. > Oh, and with regards to the "it's usually not a problem" analogy - point > taken. However, from my point of view we're talking about a few corner > cases where we'll see a slight (temporary) increase in memory consumption > (in the normal use case, there'll be no difference) vs breaking the way the > Web works (as has been explained in various ways by different people on > this list). > Sigh. I should own up, I have an allergic reaction any time someone uses the phrase "breaking the way the Web works". I don't think it's a slight, nor necessarily temporary (you're relying on good developer hygiene) increase. > I guess this is what is dividing the group into two camps right now. > Personally, I'd much rather go with the potential memory increase than > breaking typed arrays (i.e. I'm in the "let's keep the Web webby" camp). > Please be more concrete in the low-level principles being violated, because of course no one would vote against "keeping the Web webby". But I could also say protecting developers from having to deal with low-level memory issues is what makes the Web "webby". -C
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 16:14:45 UTC