Re: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

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: Intent to implement: AudioWorklet

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

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

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

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

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