- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:06:29 +0200
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-04-17 01:09, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > To be concrete, here's what I think we should do: > > -- Introduce a new subtype of MediaStream, let's call it > BundleMediaStream but I don't care what it's called. This stream > represents a bundle of tracks from other MediaStreams, where the > application controls the track set. > -- Move the current MediaStream constructors to BundleMediaStream. > -- Move addTrack/removeTrack to BundleMediaStream. > -- Specify that for MediaStreams other than BundleMediaStream, the UA > always controls the track set. > > This means for any MediaStream, either the UA controls the track set, or > the application does, but not both. I think this is a helpful > simplification for implementations and at the spec level. > > How does that sound? I like this idea at first glance. The model to let an application-managed MediaStream (BundleMediaStream) inherit from MediaStream is simple but gives us, IMO, a lot. The only drawback I can see is that the event handlers, used to listen to how the UA adds and removes tracks, are available on BundleMediaStream as well. We could add a new common base type to get around that, but I don't think it's a deal breaker. /Adam
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:07:01 UTC