W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

Re: addTrack/removeTrack on gUM streams and PeerConnection remote streams

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:06:29 +0200
Message-ID: <516E7425.3000206@ericsson.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
CC: Stefan HÃ¥kansson 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.

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:07:01 UTC

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