Re: JavaScriptAudioNode and other naming issues

Hi Cedric, thanks for your comments.

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Cedric Vivier <cedricv@neonux.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris, list,
>
>
> Traditionally web/DOM APIs are language-independent, the API should
> not have JavaScript-specific naming unless specifically required.
> In this context, JavaScriptAudioNode doesn't sound good imho as in
> fact its interface is compatible with any DOM implementation language.
>
> I propose it to be renamed RealtimeProcessorAudioNode, to reflect this
> and bring symmetry with RealtimeAnalyserAudioNode.
>

Yes, I agree that JavaScriptAudioNode isn't really the best name.  But, I'm
not so fond of  RealtimeProcessorAudioNode because effectively all of the
AudioNodes are "real-time" in their normal usage.  Perhaps something like
CustomProcessorNode?



>
>
> I'd also like to express my concerns over inconsistent naming in the spec.
> Nodes (inheriting AudioNode) are sometimes named AudioSomething
> (AudioChannelSplitter), other times are called SomethingNode
> (DelayNode), and also some other times named AudioSomethingNode
> (AudioPannerNode)... or SomethingAudioNode (JavaScriptAudioNode).
>
> I think we should rather follow a convention to make the API more
> consistent and easier to use (mnemonics).
> I propose every node (inheriting AudioNode) to be suffixed with
> "AudioNode", such as examples above would become :
> * ChannelSplitterAudioNode
> * DelayAudioNode
> * PannerAudioNode
>

It's true that the naming is not entirely consistent.  I'm not really
thrilled with the idea of using the complete "AudioNode" suffix since that
seems a bit heavy.  Instead I prefer "Node".



>
> Similarly all create<something> functions would be consistent/easier
> to use, by following the convention it makes the name of created
> objects always <something>AudioNode :
>
> BufferSourceAudioNode createBufferSource();
> RealtimeAnalyserNode createRealtimeAnalyser();   (instead of
> createAnalyser)
> DelayAudioNode createDelay();   (instead of createDelayNode)
>
>
> Regards,
>

Once again, I would prefer the "Node" rather than "AudioNode" suffix.  Since
we're dealing in the namespace of an AudioContext, I think it's clear that
the "Node" refers to an "AudioNode".

Also, I prefer the name "AudioBufferSourceNode" as compared with
"BufferSourceAudioNode" because there's actually a first class object called
"AudioBuffer" which is important to the functioning of the node, so this
naming seems more accurate.

Chris