Re: "Factory-style" AudioWorker spec proposal

On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> "objection" is a bit of a loaded term.  I was expressing preference.

Sorry — I forgot that “objection” has a very specific meaning in our process.

> 
> I think the overhead for a factory is a bit much for someone who's just trying to whip out some basic processing, not create a node that is expected to be used many times in a single app, and would prefer to avoid it in those cases.

Thanks. Maybe this focuses the discussion for tomorrow on a useful point: is it better to have 2 API flavors, one of which is as simple as possible, or is it better to stick with a single API flavor that is slightly more complex?

At this point in the evolution of the proposal, much of the factory feature has been trimmed in response to your preferences. Node configuration can always happen in the main thread, factory or no factory.  There are no extra Transferables or API sugar. I would characterize the remaining factory overhead as:

- an extra method call to create each node
- an extra event handler on the script side to handle the node creation

I have an open mind about this 2-vs-1-flavor question. I’m interested in hearing the sense of the rest of the group, and 

Best,

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

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