- From: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:10:01 -0800
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Jason Oster <parasyte at kodewerx.org> wrote: > I guess this suggestion to access the full pixel data in a single array > element has fallen by the wayside. ?Are there any direct objections to > including additional API to allow this kind of behavior? ?It seems most > developers believe it would be unnecessary, but I haven't heard much in the > way of reasoning (technical nor personal). > > I cannot comment on the "typical uses" of accessing pixel data from script; > if it is [in general] more important to have each of the R,G,B,A components > separated for script access, or not. ?But for cases involving indexed > palettes, having the ability to directly treat each pixel as a single > property is very much desired. > > It is not going to provide a huge boost in performance. ?At worst, it will > help make code cleaner. ?But at best, it will do that and [slightly?] reduce > the performance penalty of reading/writing 3 superfluous (in my eyes) array > accesses. ?The only negative aspect I can think of with additional API > functions is the introduction of new developer confusion; "Which one do I > use?" I think you'd get more traction if you had performance measurements; minimally, profiles showing that this is hot in your current application. Ideally, you could do a prototype in one of the browsers supporting WebGL which exposes the ImageData's backing store as a WebGLUnsignedIntArray. If this showed a significant speedup it would provide strong motivation. -Ken
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 17:10:01 UTC