Re: asynchronous vs synchronous instantiation of AudioWorkerNodes

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> I DON'T like the proposal of sharing the scope across node instances,
> because I don't see how you could store state then; but on the other hand,
> some state MIGHT want to be shared across nodes (e.g. HRTF database).
> Hmm.  Complexifies the design quite a bit to have a global scope and a node
> scope, though.
>

One option would be to have the spec *required* that
AudioProcessEvent.parameters is the same object every time the event fires
for a given Node. Then the worker script can attach its own per-node state
to the parameters object (using regular JS expandos).

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.