- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:17:32 +1200
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZBARjBSuMdig+G2DQmPgV7ZX2JpC22mxmfdkrQ1+AePA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > I'm slightly confused, so let me expand a few examples. I can see (at > least) three cases: > > 1) I've assigned the .buffer [presume we're using your original > semantics], then I call .getChannelData and postMessage the ArrayBuffer to > a worker. In this case, I think the assignment acquired the contents, but > the .getChannelData copied the data, so the postMessaged data is complete > but the AudioBuffer's ArrayBuffer got neutered. > Correct. 2) I called .getChannelData and postMessage prior to assigning the .buffer. > In this case, I think the audio thread's acquire is called on a neutered > ArrayBuffer, so it's empty and plays nothing. > Correct. > 3) I called .getChannelData, kept a reference to it, assigned the buffer, > then tried to postMessage the ArrayBuffer I'd been holding on to. In this > case, I think the assignment neutered the reference, so the postMessage > gets an empty array. (I think this is the case you're referring to above.) > Correct. 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 Thursday, 1 August 2013 02:17:58 UTC