W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture-logs@w3.org > June 2016

Re: [mediacapture-main] Specify relation between return from getConstraints and constraints argument

From: Harald Alvestrand via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:52:57 +0000
To: public-media-capture-logs@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-223418782-1464900776-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The particular situation I ran into was that our IDL compiler is 
written with the assumption that dictionaries don't survive iteration 
of the event loop. So I have to store it somewhere else, and it seems 
natural to use a format that is easy for C++ to access.

The distinction between the two forms

{ width: 45 }
{ width: { ideal: 45 }}

and

{ deviceId: "foo" }
{ deviceId: ["foo"]}

is purely syntactic, not semantic. so my C++-storage-form had unified 
them.
Now, with getConstraints, I need to reverse them (because I can't keep
 the dictionary around), and it seems inconvenient to remember 
syntactic sugar I've thrown away, but easy to return the simpler form.

The language I suggested would allow what you're returning too, 
although I agree it seems "noisy" when seen by the user.

Agree fully on "the most recent successful call of applyConstraints() 
or getUserMedia()", perhaps even "the most recent successful 
invocation of the applyConstraints algorithm" or whatever the correct 
phrase is, in case we define a third function that applies 
constraints.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by alvestrand
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/360#issuecomment-223418782
 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 20:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:29 UTC