W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2012

approaches to recording

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:28:06 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106CE01A3@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
To: <public-media-capture@w3.org>
The upshot of yesterday's discussion is that there is interest in two
different approaches to recording, so I'd like  to start a discussion of
them.  If we can reach consensus on one of them, we can start to write
things up in more detail.

 

Proposal 1.   Place a recording API, similar to the one in the current
proposal, on both MediaStream and MediaStreamTrack.  The Track-level API
would work as in the current proposal and would be for media processing
and applications that require detailed control.  The MediaStream API
would record all tracks in the stream into a single  file and would be
the API for at least simple recording use cases.  It would be up to the
UA/container format to determine the error cases.  For example, if the
application adds a  track to a MediaStream while recording is going on,
the action might or might not succeed, depending on whether the
container format could handle the extra track.   

 

The advantages of this approach are:  1) it's simple  to define 2) it
makes the simple cases (single video stream) easy  3)  the application
has to be prepared to deal with errors (e.g. lack of disk space) during
recording anyways.  The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes
behavior in complicated cases unpredictable.  Some UAs might be able to
handle the addition and removal of tracks during recording while others
did not. 

 

Proposal 2. Create a separate Recorder object that would serve as a
destination/sink for  MediaStream.  (I gather that there's already been
a proposal along these lines - I'd appreciate it if someone would send
me a copy.)  The configuration of this object would determine what the
MediaStream was allowed to do.  For example, the application would
create a Recorder object designed to handle a certain number of audio
and video tracks.  If the platform could not support that number, the
error would be raised when the Recorder was created/configured, not once
recording was underway.  If creation of the Recorder succeeds but the
MediaStream attempts to exceed the configured number of audio or video
tracks, either an error would be raised or the extra Tracks would be
ignored. 

 

It would be easy to add other features to the Recorder.  For example,
most recordings are stored as files.  The Recorder object could be
configured with a  URL and automatically right the recording to that URL
once it was finished.  (I suppose that it could also be configured to
stream the recording to the URL as it was created.)  There could  also
be a configuration item specifying whether multiple audio tracks were to
be merged or recorded separately.    Most of these options should
probably be provided as a Dictionary at construction time since we would
not want them changed while recording was going on.  

 

There would need to be a distinct interface, probably similar to the
existing proposal, to handle media capture and media processing at the
Track level.  

 

One objection to this approach has come from Travis, who notes that it
allows overlapping/simultaneous recording of a stream, for which he sees
no good use cases.  (On the other hand, it does address another of
Microsoft's concerns, in that the UA will know before recording starts
how many tracks there will be.)

 

Any other thoughts and comments?

 

-          Jim
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:29:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:02 GMT