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 16:25:18 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLb3+o6xC7mP75BO_RqtPOJMzVBHekw9krOUXMUDagDLOQ@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 3:10 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> "transferToImageBuffer" looks like it would create a new ImageBuffer for
> each frame, so you'd need to add a close() method to make sure they don't
> accumulate due to GC lag,

That's a good point. We will need something like that. It would only neuter
that thread's (main thread or worker thread) version of the ImageBitmap.

and it seems like turning this into a fast buffer swap under the hood would
> be harder.

I don't see why.

> Also, with the "transferToImageBuffer" approach, if you want to render
> from a worker into multiple canvases in the UI thread, you have to post
> those ImageBuffers over to the main thread each frame, which has the same
> (potential) synchronization issues as the transferDrawingBufferToCanvas
> proposal.

What are those issues? You can do a single postMessage passing a complete
set of ImageBItmaps.

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 03:25:43 UTC

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