I don't know how it is possible to do this, unless all WA changes are batched up into a single postMessage. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Norbert Schnell <Norbert.Schnell@ircam.fr> wrote: > On 11 sept. 2014, at 15:41, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > > I think this is actually indefinite in the spec today - and needs to > be. "start(0)" (in fact, any "start(n)" where n is < > audiocontext.currentTime) is catch as catch can; thread context switch may > happen, and that needs to be okay. Do we guarantee that: > > > > node1.start(0); > > ...some really time-expensive processing steps... > > node2.start(0); > > will have synchronized start times? > > IMHO, it would be rather important that these two really go off at the > same time : > > var now = audioContext.currentTime; > node1.start(now); > ...some really time-expensive > node2.start(now); > > ... unless we can well define what "really time-expensive" means and the > ability to avoid it. > Is that actually case? I was never sure about this... > > Evidently it could be sympathetic if everything < > audioContext.currentTime could just be clipped and behave accordingly. That > would make things pretty clear and 0 synonymous to "now", which feels right. > > Norbert
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 14:52:09 UTC