- From: Stef Epardaud <stef@epardaud.fr>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:35:08 +0100
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:25:34PM +0000, Stefan Haustein wrote: > We've been getting pretty good traction on Vlad's ArrayBuffers proposal, > which was taken from the WebGL spec. Our current plan is to change the > names in the browsers (WebKit, Chrome and Mozilla) to the "non-WebGL > specific" names Vlad proposes in his spec. We'd really like this to be the > "one true binary data access" mechanism for HTML. We're talking to the > File API guys about this and I think this API can be adapted in all the > other places as well. > As far as performance goes, can you point me at some quantitative data? > When you say it's an "orders-of-magnitude" bottleneck, what are you > comparing it to? The API is very new and we certainly want to improve it > for the various purposes it can be put to. We've even talked about > optimizations inside the JS implementations to improve access performance. If we can get something akin to Java's System.arraycopy ( http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#arraycopy%28java.lang.Object,%20int,%20java.lang.Object,%20int,%20int%29 ) then the ArrayBuffer proposal would work for me :) If we cannot copy ArrayBuffer ranges by blocks in an effecient manner, then it's going to be very limiting. -- St?phane Epardaud
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 00:35:08 UTC