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

What are the advantages of introducing the new spec under the old API names
(createScriptProcessor + ScriptProcessorNode), rather than creating a new
API for this proposal and deprecating the old API?

As a developer working on a project with Web Audio API, I think it would be
less disruptive to have a clean break with the old API.  Thoughts?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, 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.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>
>> How can we remove the current ScriptProcessorNode from the spec? My
>> understanding is that quite a few sites and applications depend on it.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>