W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

Re: [whatwg] Counterproposal for canvas in workers

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:22:10 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbxdbq9VSOBTrAbS1AZDMNy2X-M1cD40r_fNbzPUJsKyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't remember "multiple workers accessing the same canvas" and I'm not
> >> quite sure what it means.  I do remember "a single (WebGL) context
> >> rendering to multiple canvases".  Is that what you're thinking of?
> >>
> >
> > I went back over the history and that was indeed his use case.
> >
> That's a good use case, I've wanted to do that myself.  We haven't tried
> very hard to fit it into the WorkerCanvas approach yet, and it may also be
> that the best way to do that is orthogonal to the whole "canvas in workers"
> use case.

That's not really a use-case. What would you actually be trying to do? IIUC
Ken agreed that his use-cases that appeared to require a single context
rendering to multiple canvases would be addressed just as easily (or
better) by using multiple image elements, a single canvas, and doing
"image.srcObject = canvas.transferToImageBuffer()".

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 01:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC