Re: Call for Consensus: retire current ScriptProcessorNode design & AudioWorker proposal from Chris Wilson on 2014-08-12 (public-audio@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:52:25 -0700
To: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Cc: Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com>, "Srikumar K. S." <srikumarks@gmail.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXAY09V9Fa7SRGxbMxTD3YrkwQ_c5-Vux_7W0bvFfowRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
wrote:

> In the meantime I think it would be fine to table the idea of multicore
> usage by offline audio context until further study can take place. It’s not
> going to be possible in a real-time audio context either, so this is not
> outright disadvantaging offline usage.
>

Actually, it *is* possible in a real-time context - you would just be
responsible for forking a Worker thread and passing the data back and forth
(dealing with asynchronicity by buffering latency yourself).

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 18:52:55 UTC