Re: asynchronous vs synchronous instantiation of AudioWorkerNodes

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
wrote:

> 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 :-)
>

Yes, I think so too. :)


>
> …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"
>
>