W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

Re: addTrack/removeTrack on gUM streams and PeerConnection remote streams

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:38:42 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYEU_QCWcEJYeMDFYfXZ6w2TMp75ghHwLXOcr3w0bhY1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> There are some use-cases which can be handled better if add/removeTrack is
> possible, but if complex to implement I would personally be open to omit
> that from a first version (especially if we decide that synchronization
> context spans all tracks originating from the same end-point, not only the
> tracks in one MediaStream). We could add it as a later extension.
>

What does it mean for a script to remove a MediaStreamTrack from a gUM
stream or a PeerConnection remote stream? Does that have any side effects?
Maybe it's just me but it seems weird that a script could, say, swap the
tracks between a gUM stream and a PeerConnection remote stream. It would be
extra weird if we ever create any subclasses of MediaStream.

Use-cases that need add/removeTrack can always construct their own
MediaStream with borrowed tracks.

Rob
-- 
q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq
qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq
qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq
qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q
qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq
qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 11:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:40 UTC