On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org>

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Justin Novosad <ju...@google.com> wrote:
>> I am currently trying an experimental approach where canvases that are
>> drawn to, but never read from (no toDataURL or getImageData calls) have
>> their contents stored as a command buffer, rather than a pixel buffer.
> There must be a cliff with that approach, where if you issue a sufficient
> number of drawing commands without clearing the canvas you have to
> rasterize, otherwise memory usage will grow without bound. That seems like
> a problem for authors. I think it's reasonably easy for authors to
> understand and control canvas memory usage at the moment, and I'd like to
> not make it worse.

Also, you would have the problem of how correctly size temporary offscreen
canvases and variable-resolution image assets that Ian's approach had. And
without adding new API, there remains the problem of getImageData needing
to return 1 pixel per canvas coordinate unit for compatibility, thus
requiring some kind of getImageDataHD for authors who want more ... thus
requiring new API.

So while I applaud experimentation with retaining canvas command buffers, I
don't want it to block consideration of alternatives for explicit canvas
buffer sizing.

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

Reply via email to