- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:30:03 -0700
- To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 9 April 2013 07:43, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > My preference would be *1*. I don't really see why we would do any changes > if we do not allow the same track to be part of more than one MediaStream - > the current text says that constructing a MediaStream, or doing addTrack, > clones the tracks. Not taking any position here, but I can't parse your rationale here. Just to be perfectly clear, the reason we are discussing this is: Tracks are mutable, their settings can change. Tracks can be grouped in multiple MediaStreams. Certain properties of tracks were perceived as only being relevant in the context of a MediaStream. I'm speaking here of enabled/disabled specifically, the other settings are less problematic. Changing enabled/disabled only has meaning in the context of the MediaStream. As a consequence, a change to a Track has surprising side effects if that Track is used in two places. ... An alternative that hasn't been considered (at least publicly) is to have enabled/disabled as a Track-indexed property of a MediaStream. Then Tracks don't need this property. Two possible embodiments: split Tracks into enabled and disabled sets, or have a map (something like stream.enabled[track]). That's almost too ugly to contemplate though.
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 16:30:31 UTC