Re: AudioWorklet examples

Joe,

I thought the task is assigned to myself at the teleconference before F2F?
Also I would like to sit on examples for few more days to cover all the
corner cases before I start writing a comprehensive PR.

The examples on our issue tracker are just rough sketches. So please
understand mistakes and inconsistencies in the snippets. More importantly,
we still have (somewhat crucial) unresolved issues:

- Static resource loading: I've been sitting on this idea for a while, but
I am inclined to punt this to V2.
- AudioParam initialization: I think we're getting close on this one, but I
heard TC39 is planning to introduce 'static property' in class syntax, so I
want to check it out.
- Multiple node definitions in a single file: this allows developers to use
a hacky way of inter-node communication by sharing an object.

Once we settle on these, the next step is to create actual usage examples
based on the proposed IDL. I believe we can create a PR after that step is
finished.

Best,
Hongchan


On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:44 AM Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I did miss the F2F so forgive me if I am missing something obvious --
>> that's quite likely!
>>
>> We don't seem to have a comprehensive PR anywhere that amends the spec
>> examples to reflect tha latest Worklet thinking; instead we have a
>> discussion split between 3 open issues (777-779). The examples in those
>> issues do not completely line up either (for instance, 'fooNode' is a node
>> type in 777, but 'Foo' is used in 778). Furthermore the new examples seem
>> to have abandoned the Node vs. NodeProcessor nomenclature that we used to
>> have, so there is some confusion in my mind as to whether AudioWorkletNode
>> is the main-thread interface, or the audio-thread interface.
>>
>> I feel like it would be useful to unify all this stuff and try to have a
>> draft that pulls together all this material in a single place. Is there a
>> PR or branch in the pipeline that will do this? If not, I'd like to try to
>> pull one together. However I am nervous about getting out in front of the
>> implementation efforts that seem to be going on.
>>
>> What do the spec editors and group members think?
>>
>
> I have no objection to a PR or branch to put everything in place. I assume
> it wasn't done originally because this was the first time this new worklet
> approach was used so nothing was really ready for a PR until we got some
> agreement. I think we are mostly there, except for worklet item 3.
>
>