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

Re: RECAP: Conclusion: Cloning and sharing of MediaStreamTracks - worth it?

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:27:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVM_JY+p6aUnfv2vxMGKVwjvSZdiYpNg2nh0=6Y38Xzcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 20 August 2013 05:42, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen any real-world use cases that shows clearly that it is a
> better solution to have a MST belonging to more than one MS.

There was one provided a little while back.  Someone stated that they
wanted to provide relaying for audio but not video.  The only viable
option that was suggested was to use different RTCPeerConnection
instances - one for the audio, which would have a relay enabled, and
one for the video.  In order to do that, you need two MediaStream
instances.  But that means that you have the same tracks in different
MediaStreams in order to ensure that the tracks are played out
synchronized.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 16:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:18 UTC