Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-06 Thread Karl Tomlinson
On Fri, 4 May 2018 14:32:20 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/4/18 3:34 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: >> Not sure I understand your question, but the observable behavior >> described by this section, or specifically "Before an AudioNode is >> deleted, it will disconnect itself from any other AudioNod

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-04 Thread Nils Ohlmeier
Looks like the existing WebAudio issue https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1471 is where this should get resolved (for people who haven’t switched over there yet). Best regards Nils Ohlmeier > On May 2, 2018, at 09:05, hong

Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-04 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/4/18 3:34 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Not sure I understand your question, but the observable behavior described by this section, or specifically "Before an AudioNode is deleted, it will disconnect itself from any other AudioNodes" Right. So that observably influences the sound produced or

Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-04 Thread Karl Tomlinson
Boris Zbarsky writes: > So if there is in fact a problem still remaining, convincing Alex > that it's there is pretty valuable. Having him convinced it > doesn't exist is actively harmful as far as getting it fixed goes. Thank you. Alex sounds like a very valuable person to get on side. We may

Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-03 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/3/18 6:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: I didn't understand why he was highlighting "order of object tear-down", nor why he was implying that only "VERY fine-grained" knowledge was a problem. Alex, depending on whether he's speaking with his TAG hat or Google hat on, is either trying to figur

Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-03 Thread Robert O'Callahan
I read the threads you referenced and the latest spec, and I think you're absolutely right about everything :-). On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Thank you for taking a look, Boris. I'm quite unclear how any of > the changes proposed in the [[March F2F resolution]] comme

Re: Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-03 Thread L. David Baron
On Friday 2018-05-04 10:21 +1200, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Is having web specifications try to describe object lifetimes > helpful, or is it just over-prescribing? > > Should specifications instead just focus on observable behavior, > and leave it to implementations to optimize and to reclaim > res

Should web specifications try to describe object lifetimes? [was Intent to implement: AudioWorklet]

2018-05-03 Thread Karl Tomlinson
Boris Zbarsky writes: > On 5/2/18 5:21 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: >> [[AudioNode Lifetime]] https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1471 > > I've read through that thread, but I'm still a little unclear on > where thing stand. With the latest proposal, can there be > observable situations

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread hongchan
It's great to see the intent for the AudioWorklet, but also I can see the GC observability is still being discussed here. Karl, can you open a new spec issue if you think this needs another look from AudioWG and TAG? -Hongchan On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:17:30 AM UTC-7, Boris Zbarsky wrote

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/2/18 5:21 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: [[AudioNode Lifetime]] https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1471 I've read through that thread, but I'm still a little unclear on where thing stand. With the latest proposal, can there be observable situations where the output sound depend

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread Xidorn Quan
On Wed, May 2, 2018, at 11:34 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > > > >> It seems that Chrome works around this by choosing to garbage > >> collect input nodes even when their presence is s

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread Tom Ritter
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > >> It seems that Chrome works around this by choosing to garbage >> collect input nodes even when their presence is specified to >> require (observable) AudioWorkletProcessor.process

Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > It seems that Chrome works around this by choosing to garbage > collect input nodes even when their presence is specified to > require (observable) AudioWorkletProcessor.process() calls. > This garbage collection is performed in a way that c

Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

2018-05-02 Thread Karl Tomlinson
=Summary/benefits: "The AudioWorklet object allows developers to supply scripts (such as JavaScript or WebAssembly code) to process audio on the rendering thread, supporting custom AudioNodes." [[Concepts]] Allowing scripts to process audio on the rendering thread is important for low latency g