- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:56:18 -0700
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWtFZ4VZm863-op+WZOmJUyNSUZqARgXJ7cjEmvtx742w@mail.gmail.com>
Good. 'Cause that's what I did. :P This has been merged into the Editor's Draft, incidentally - I took yesterday's telecon as permission to do so. http://webaudio.github.io/web-audio-api/. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > I don't see serious problems with this duck-typing. > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > >> I'm leaning toward simply not directly implementing Worker, then, and >> adding postMessage/onmessage to the AudioWorkerNode interface directly. >> I'd rather not have one more object hanging around (and have to explain >> that the onmessage has to be set on the .worker, not on the node, e.g.). >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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" >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 22:56:46 UTC