W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2010

[whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:43:11 -0800
Message-ID: <F229B841-FCB1-401F-83F4-BBD162058095@apple.com>

On Mar 13, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> There is a use case, which I suspect is quite common, for using
>>> <canvas> to manipulate files on the users file system. For example
>>> when creating a photo uploader which does client side scaling before
>>> uploading the images, or for creating a web based GIMP like
>>> application.
>>>
>>> In this case we'll start out with a File object that needs to be  
>>> read
>>> in to a <canvas>. One solution could be to read the File into memory
>>> in a ByteArray (or similar) and add a synchronous
>>> canvas2dcontext.fromByteArray function. This has the advantage of
>>> being more generic, but the downside of forcing both the encoded and
>>> decoded image to be read into memory.
>>
>> Honestly i think  nice and consistent way for this work work would  
>> simply be to support
>> someImage.src = someFileObject
>>
>> Which would be asynchronous, and support all the image formats the  
>> browser already supports.
>
> That is already possible:
>
> someImage.src = someFileObject.urn;
>
> However this brings us back to the very long list of steps I listed
> earlier in this thread.

I think it is cleaner to have an asynchronous image load operation (as  
shown above) and then a synchronous image paint operation, rather than  
to introduce a asynchronous paint operation directly on the 2D context.

I don't think there is any sane way to add an asynchronous draw  
command to the 2D context, given that all the existing drawing  
commands are synchronous. What happens if you do an async paint of a  
File, followed by synchronous painting operations? It seems like the  
only options are to force synchronous I/O, give unpredictable results,  
or break the invariants on current drawing operations (i.e. the  
guarantee that they are complete by the time you return to the event  
loop and thus canvas updates are atomic)

Separating the async I/O from drawing allows the 2D context to remain  
100% synchronous and thus to have sane semantics.

I think the number of steps is not the primary concern here. The issue  
driving the proposal for offscreen canvas is responsiveness - i.e. not  
blocking the main thread for a long time. It seems to me that number  
of steps is not the main issue for responsiveness, but rather whether  
there are operations that take a lot of CPU and are done  
synchronously, and therefore, whether it is worthwhile to farm some of  
that work out to a Worker. I/O is not really a major consideration  
because we already have ways to do asynchronous I/O.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 00:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:21 UTC