On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Jones <bajones@google.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Gregg Tavares (社用) <gman@google.com> wrote:

Is that more developer friendly? It means if you want to show the same frame between videos you have to do extra work.

I'm a little unclear on what you're referring to here. I assume you mean "show the last frame from a previous video in a playlist while a the next video is loading?" I can see how that may be a nice side effect, but it also feels a bit hacky. If I want my video player to nicely transition from one video to the next I have all the events at my disposal to monitor that and do the Right Thing.

Sorry, I'm assuming you don't have all the events. That you are not running the entire thing yourself. That some site like youtube, vimeo or G+ hangouts provides a _javascript_ API that gives you video tag controlled by their _javascript_ and that you're trying incorporate it into some WebGL app and it may or may not give you all the events you need to know every detail.

I'm also assuming that even if you write it yourself, most developers would prefer to show the last frame of a video than black.

var cue = 0;
var playlist = [
"video1.mp4",
"video2.mp4",
"video3.mp4",

"video4.mp4",
];

video.addEventListener('ended', cueNextVideo);

function cueNextVideo() {
if (cue >= playlist.length) {
return;

}
video.src = "">
video.play();

}

function render() {
gl.texImage2D(...., video);
gl.drawXXX(...);
requestAnimationFrame(render);

}

cueNextVideo();

render();

That seems developer friendly to me. It just works. (assumes my fiction that developers would prefer the last frame between videos ;-p)

Here's what I guess the alternative is

var cue = 0;
var playlist = [
"video1.mp4",
"video2.mp4",
"video3.mp4",

"video4.mp4",
];
var update = false;

video.addEventListener('ended', cueNextVideo);
video.addEventListener('playing', function() {
update = true;

});

function cueNextVideo() {

if (cue >= playlist.length) {
return;
}

update = false;
video.src = "">
video.play();
}

function render() {

if (update) {
gl.texImage2D(...., video);

}
gl.drawXXX(...);
requestAnimationFrame(render);
}

cueNextVideo();
render();

Not that burdensome either. I feel strongly that texSubImage2D should be a no-op if nothing is available. For texImage2D it seems like it should be a no-op or a 0x0 texture. Not 1x1. My preference is no-op but I don't feel that strongly.

I agree with Colin, a console warning might would be useful either way. Although it could also get in the way of legit apps. Especially if we decide to allow progressive loading.

Re: [Public WebGL] texImage2D on unfinished images and video