- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:11:38 +1200
- To: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaiXjND8_Tq=FOSUD4E5XTp_PG+G5SsM7dhv8vbhhJ=Qw@mail.gmail.com>
The spec for connect() currently says "This is allowed only if there is at least one DelayNode in the cycle or an exception will be thrown" but it doesn't say what kind of exception. More importantly, I don't think we should throw an exception here. Synchronous cycle detection can get expensive when you're creating large graphs; it's likely to make graph construction O(N^2) for certain kinds of graphs. I think instead we should say that cycles containing no DelayNodes simply produce silence. If browsers want to help developers find such bugs, they can provide developer tool assistance to do so --- and that could be much more useful than just an exception, for example it could report all the nodes in the cycle. (Efficient asynchronous cycle detection --- e.g. checking for cycles every Nms --- is easy.) 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, 30 August 2013 01:12:05 UTC