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

Re: revised recording proposal

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:26:18 +0100
Message-ID: <50B7465A.8090008@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/29/2012 08:53 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 08:28 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
>> There is a difference between returning a blob at timeSlice intervals
>> until stopRecording is called, versus returning a File object only
>> once.  I don't want to get into a discussion on how different GC's
>> are treating blobs today, but to say that there is no performance
>> difference between the two is premature.
>
> That is an aspect I did not consider! I - na´vely - was only thinking 
> about the API layer.
>
> If I understand you correctly, the issue is more related to returning 
> several instances of (time-sliced) recorded data during an ongoing 
> recording vs. only one set of data after the recording has ended than 
> to the actual handling of Blob's vs. File's.
It's not unlikely that some implementations that return blob-at-a-time 
will be considerably faster than some implementations that return 
file-at-a-time (the variant where file-at-a-time writes/swaps to disk, 
while blob-at-a-time stays within memory the whole time).

I don't think we're likely to see consistency in which way the advantage 
goes.

There are some proposed applications (speech recognition, recording to 
remote media on a limited-memory device) where file-at-a-time would be 
thoroughly inapppropriate.
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 11:26:47 UTC

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