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

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

From: Tommy Widenflycht <tommyw@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:21:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CALLKCfObYQhZvzJC7_t7RJytsdcOEW+QxM-k4xKcSFHCxj0Q-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
So a user wants to send the audio MST through PC1 (with relay) and the
video MST through PC2. How does this require a MST to belong to more that
one MS? And how can there be any expectation that the audio and video
are synchronized
on the receiving side? I must be missing something.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 21 August 2013 13:21:30 UTC

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