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

Re: [whatwg] Counterproposal for canvas in workers

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:10:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAhfYG0-Oeh2+c8p1gp7j07vSBeH8rzjcwMdgyEZD1F0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Creating temporary canvases is still possible. I'm unsure how it would
>>> be different from a worker.
>>> An advantage would be that you can draw to the temporary canvases in
>>> parallel to using them. Only PIXEL access is disallowed, you can still call
>>> drawImage using a canvas that has outstanding tasks.
>>>
>>
>> Right. The write-only restriction would only apply to canvas contexts
>> that commit (push their tasks) directly down to the compositor. You could
>> still create a canvas that is local to the worker, rasterize it in the
>> worker and do readbacks in the worker, create ImageBitmaps from it, etc.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that you and Rik are talking about the same thing, since he's
> still talking about "outstanding tasks". If you are talking about the same
> thing, I don't know what it is. I'd like to see some concrete details for
> what you'd change in the current WorkerCanvas proposal. For the sake of
> clarity I've put (my understand of) it here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Roc/WorkerCanvasProposal
>

I'll work on drawing up an example of my proposal.

With WorkerCanvas and transferToImageBitmap, you can draw multiple layers
> in parallel (and actually draw, not just queue drawing commands) by
> creating multiple workers, having them each produce an ImageBitmap, and
> compositing those ImageBitmaps together by stacking <img> elements or
> drawing them all to a single canvas. It uses more memory but you get more
> parallelism.
>

They would still have to wait for each other so the images are composited
in-order. If you don't care about that, the 'synchronized' option would let
you draw as soon as you exit the task (which is how Chrome always draws
since it's faster)

In fact, an implementation could choose to take the deferred-drawing
> approach instead. You would queue up drawing commands in the WorkerCanvas
> (or the drawing context), and then transferToImageBitmap would not
> immediately render but produce an ImageBitmap implementation encapsulating
> the list of drawing commands to be drawn later, wherever/whenever that
> ImageBitmap ended up being used. I think for commit() the implementation
> would always want to force rasterization on the worker (or possibly some
> dedicated canvas-rendering thread); you could forward a list of drawing
> commands to the compositor thread for rasterization but I don't think
> there's any reason to do that (and some good reasons not to).
>

Can you tell me how you can ensure that you don't do too much work? Drawing
in a continuous loop using 'Commit' would waste a lot of resources.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 03:10:48 UTC

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