- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:21:56 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2012-08-23 16:03, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > On 08/23/2012 03:50 PM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: >> >> I've also though about this initial filtering that applying >> constraints before presenting device options to the user provides. >> However, I think we win more with the new approach than we loose. >> >> Even with constraints applied after device selection we need some >> small set of options/constraints to filter the device list presented >> to the user. We have the obvious "audio" and "video", but we may also >> need something to hint about camera direction where it's possible >> ("front"/"user" "back"/"environment"). If this proves to be a huge >> problem, we could also look into some quality hints here like "hd", >> "vga" and so on. It won't solve everything but I think it will cover a >> lot of cases. >> >> /Adam >> > Now I've really lost you - are you advocating applying constraints as > part of getUserMedia, or are you advocating not applying constraints as > part of getUserMedia? > > I'm not even going to consider the implications of having two different > data structures for constraints, one that you use on getUserMedia and > one that you use after getting the device; that's just too gross to > consider. I don't expect getUserMedia() to only have the successCallback and errorCallback arguments in Travis' proposal. My understanding is that it would be something similar to before we had constraints. E.g. navigator.getUserMedia({audio: true, video: true}, successCb, errorCb); Constraints would then be applied (if necessary) in successCb at the earliest. > (Note - I think we need to separate cleanly the constraints, which apply > to capabilities of the device, from *commands* to the device, like "turn > the flash on" or "pan to the left" - the latter needs to be an interface > like what Rich is suggesting. It can't be expressed sensibly using > constraints.) That sounds very reasonable. /Adam
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 14:22:20 UTC