Re: Call for Consensus: retire current ScriptProcessorNode design & AudioWorker proposal

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> That is precisely why I highlighted this risk.
>
> ScriptProcessors are certainly used today.  I don't think it's horrific to
> consider switching it over (and then off), but I do think it will take a
> concerted, cooperative effort to do so.  I think at the very least Mozilla
> and Chrome (and ideally Safari, too) would need to support the new version
> in roughly the same timeframe, would need to throw a "deprecation warning",
> and would need to have a concerted plan to shut off the old version in
> roughly the same timeframe, too.  Oh, and make sure IE doesn't support the
> old one at all.  :)
>
> We are getting a fair bit of heat for turning off old bits in Chrome, so
> believe me, I'm not taking this lightly.  I just think the previous
> incarnation is very bad.
>

I don't think we should remove anything from the spec until we're confident
that we can drop support.

Furthermore, I think there are two use-cases where the current main-thread
API is actually OK:
-- Capturing and analyzing audio data, i.e., a pure sink.
-- Generating audio data, i.e., a pure source.
The current main-thread API only really sucks when you're trying to take
input and produce output. Is there disagreement about that?

If not, then I think we should keep the main-thread API (and introduce the
new API to handle scripted processing).

Rob
-- 
oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
owohooo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o
oioso
oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo
owohooo
osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro
ooofo
otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.