W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

[Bug 23037] What should happen in case of cycles containing a delay node is under-defined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:17:00 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23037-5429-Y9u761LlbM@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

Robert O'Callahan (Mozilla) <roc@ocallahan.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |roc@ocallahan.org

--- Comment #1 from Robert O'Callahan (Mozilla) <roc@ocallahan.org> ---
Having to recheck for cycles every time we sample the delay AudioParams would
be pretty bad I think.

So I think we should clamp the DelayNode's delay to a minimum of 128 cycles at
all times. Then cycle-checking just needs to ensure there's at least one
DelayNode in every cycle and we're fine.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2013 22:17:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:23 UTC