Re: asynchronous vs synchronous instantiation of AudioWorkerNodes

Hi Jussi,

I’m sorry, I should have looked at your previous proposal in more detail — thank you for re-posting the reference. Clearly you came up with the node handle/proxy idea some time ago; I didn’t remember it or I would have acknowledged that. Anyway, I think we’re in agreement :-)

…Joe

On Nov 10, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:
>> 
>> FWIW, I just made a complete example on how to implement a Sine node on top of my proposal: https://gist.github.com/jussi-kalliokoski/aa84fbb4cde7fc54ff01
> 
> Jussi,
> 
> That looks pretty much in line with my proposal.
> 
> One difference is that you put the node-construction method on the context instead of the worker.
> 
> A more substantive difference is that you seem to be giving the worker access to the actual AudioWorkerNode object, the same one that’s in the main thread.
> 
> Ah, no, that's not the case. In my proposal ([1] and the amendment [2]) the worker is given an AudioHandle instance, not an actual AudioNode instance.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2014JulSep/0208.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2014JulSep/0209.html
>  
> I’m thinking that probably breaks the required isolation between the worker scope and the main thread. That’s why I proposed a different “node processor” object type inside the worker: an object that represents the node from the audio-thread’s perspective, but isn’t actually the node itself.
> 
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
> 
> 

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

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