- From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 20:13:23 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <476de062-3b79-1fd8-9fd6-d7b74f2d9d65@jesup.org>
On 6/9/2018 2:52 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote: > On 09/06/2018 19:41, Randell Jesup wrote: >> Not to belabor a point here, but if this is to occur on the main >> thread there's a real problem with this API (and this could occur I >> suppose, with a bunch of additional work elsewhere in the spec, on a >> Worker). >> >> Even on a Worker, outside of emscriptem/WASM code that carefully >> doesn't throw garbage, there will be GC pauses causing hiccups in the >> stream - potentially long (in a realtime sense). >> > > Fully agree. But if all components are implemented natively there > should be no need to go into the main thread or call any js code once > the streams are attached and the pipe chain is created. If someone > wants to reimplement any of the components in js or add custom ones, > then, they will have to be really careful, but they will not impact on > the performance of the rest of the people using the APIs. > > Not sure what is the expected whatwg stream behavior and if this is > supported/possible, but both in their use cases and the design would > be quite similar to what we are trying to achieve. Correct - if these are all predefined nodes (or something in WASM that doesn't throw garbage, probably), then you won't be subject to GC (or event queue) delays. I may have been jumping the gun on suggesting that this was a problem with streams here (it's a saturday and I'm packing for a conference). If, however, any of these takes a trip through JS/event queues, then it's problematic (like a number of the proposals that had JS involved in packetization and other network and media-input related actions). -- Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com Please please please don't email randell-ietf@jesup.org! Way too much spam
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2018 00:16:25 UTC