AudioWorker proposal

Hi Chris,

I remember the issue (and contributed some comments to it at the time) but it’s difficult to determine the exact proposal that was discussed at last week’s meeting, since a number of variants are proposed in github issue 113 with different folks suggesting this flavor or that flavor.

From the fact that Olivier called this “synchronous”, I'm guessing that you were discussing an AudioWorker object that executes directly in the audio thread and doesn’t have to deal with message-passing. I infer that an AudioWorker obtains its input (and output?) audio buffer directly from an AudioProcessingEvent passed to the worker’s “onaudioprocess” function defined in its AudioWorkerGlobalScope. This was proposed in your comment of March 26, I think.

Is that understanding correct? Were further changes to this approach discussed?

…Joe

On Jul 17, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> It's mostly written up in the issue (https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/113), but I realized on the call that I hadn't yet written out an IDL for how the synchronous version would work.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Paul Adenot <paul@paul.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014, at 06:43 PM, Joseph Berkovitz wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>  
>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>  
>>> * Progress of scriptprocessornodes in workers issue
>>> We discussed a proposal for a synchronous model for the node. There will also be a Call for Consensus soon on the possibility of breaking changes for the main thread ScriptProcessorNode.
>>>  
>>  
>> Is there a writeup of the proposal that was discussed?
>  
> Not as far as I know. We kind of agreed on a super high level, but nothing very solid yet.
>  
> Paul.
> 



.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

Noteflight LLC
Boston, Mass.
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere"