- From: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 06:35:18 -0700
- To: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
I think Rich already answered most of your question, just a few more comments: On 3/6/2012 12:43 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Q2: This style would create an object that represents "the head of the > MediaStream". Would it be logical to move some of the manipulation > functions we've been thinking of for MediaStreams onto that object, if > this is adopted? Yes, I'm in favor of adding more such listeners to the UserMedia object which represents a state far earlier than when a MediaStream can be "live". That said, I am not opposed to having convenience methods in the MediaStream object; but if having both is confusing, I prefer the former. > Q3: If we adopted this behaviour, would the function > > function oldStyleGetUserMedia(opts, success, fail) { > var media = navigator.getUserMedia(opts); > media.addEventListener('onsuccess', function(event e) { success(e.stream) } > ... same for failure .. > } > > constitute a drop-in replacement for "old-style" code, or are there > subtleties here that need exploring? No, this works. However, I don't see why that is easier than: var media = navigator.getUserMedia(opts); media.onsuccess = success; media.onerror = fail; The events spec allows for this, if you don't need more than one listener you can directly attach your callback to the 'onsuccess'/'onerror' properties. > > Q4: could we use a different name for the new function? > > Not speaking at all to the "is this hard for existing implementations" > argument...... I'm not opposed to a new name - getUserMedia always sounded a little clunky to me :) However, I do feel like having two functions specified in our draft is unnecessary - there is no precedent for having two different functions under the navigator namespace that differ only in events/callbacks. -Anant
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 13:35:51 UTC