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

Re: recording

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:15:09 +0100
Message-ID: <50A239CD.4030805@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 2012-11-13 12:18, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 08:42 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> Here’s a summary of what I think we agreed to in Lyon.  If we still
>> agree to it, I will start writing it up.  (Please send comments on any
>> or all of the points below.)
> I think I like this. I'd like to see this as a proposal.
>> Recording should be implemented by a separate class.  Its constructor
>> will take a MediaStream as an argument  (we can define it to take
>> other types as well, if we choose, but no one is suggesting any at the
>> moment.)
>> There are two kinds of recording:
>> 1)incremental, in which (smaller) Blobs of data are returned to the
>> application as they are available.
>> 2)All-at-once, in which one big Blob of data is made available when
>> recording is finished.
> So are these 2 classes that both take a MediaStream as a constructor
> argument?
> This might be simpler than having one merged class that does both.

I read the proposal as one class with two different record methods.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 12:15:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:12 UTC