Re: Audio Workers - please review

Hmm. I had been wondering about the feasibility of the interface mixin idea, although I liked the simplicity.

If there is no precedent in other APIs for mixing in disparate classes like this, and it creates implementation discomfort, I lean towards the earlier approach in which the Worker was a distinct property of the AudioWorkerNode.

However in that case I don’t see the need to construct the AudioWorker explicitly in a separate step and shove it into the node -- I’d suggest that it be “pre-manufactured” by createAudioWorker(), as part of the returned AudioWorkerNode. That seems kind of ideal: no separate step for the developer, but a clean separation of concerns for implementors.

…Joe

On Aug 26, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:

> On 08/26/2014 07:54 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> Ah, thanks.
>> 
>> Mixing in a concrete class like that is likely to cause problems for implementors.
> 
> 
> Yes, and the prototype handling would be rather unexpected.
> AudioWorkerNode wouldn't have WorkerPrototype as prototype, but AudioNodePrototype.
> And even more odd is that AudioWorkerNode would inherit EventTarget via AudioNode interface, but
> re-implement EventTarget via Worker interface.
> 
> -Olli
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

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