Re: Call for Consensus: retire current ScriptProcessorNode design & AudioWorker proposal from Srikumar K. S. on 2014-08-15 (public-audio@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Srikumar K. S. <srikumarks@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:23:05 +0530
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AAAD471A-07FD-472A-A5A8-45080EA41FE2@gmail.com>

> On 15 Aug 2014, at 1:53 am, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what Chris was testing in that mail thread, but yes, there's no inter-thread communication, making this essentially just a JS function call.

Glad about that. What I was trying to say is that, as a dev, I *expect* this to be just a JS function call and it ought to be at that level of overhead. The overhead that Chris R measured was for a similar but async API, but that level of overhead is not acceptable in an implementation of audio workers.

Attachments

application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s

Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 01:53:40 UTC