Re: Proposal: Time out for getUserMedia.

Yes, its a good point.
I thought of application handling this scenario also, but the following
points made me to propose it to implement in the browser.

a. If the application is not implementing this handling scenario, then the
browser can free the resources by itself.
b. The complexity of implementing timers,and maintaining ID's, can be
reduced at the application layer (App can provide an input for wait_timer
value or can use the default one).

It seems to be good if both the ways are available.

Thanks,
Kiran.


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>
>     Blocking forever is certainly bad from a usability point of view.
>
>     I would point out that if the API allowed us to cancel a
> getUserMedia(), as opposed to simply supplying a timeout, we could
> implement even more advanced use-cases (where the process is interrupted by
> some other external stimuli). If getUserMedia() were to return an ID then
> you could use a design similar to setTimeout(), clearTimeout(). What do you
> think?
>
> Gili
>
>
> On 30/08/2013 12:42 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
>
> I think these are required features, for application developers.
>
>  For 1. There are possibilities like pop-up may be closed many times
> knowingly or unknowingly. Then the application will wait for the
> getUserMedia() callback indefinitely. API implementation can solve this
> problem (as that in chromium).
>
>  For 2. In the earlier implementations, pop-up will get the highest
> priority, and will not allow the user to do any operations until he answers
> it. But now, the pop-up allows user to continue his work even with out
> answering the pop-up. In this regard, there are chances like the pop-up
> many not be answered for long time and application will be waiting for the
> response. It will be better if getUserMedia() supports the time out case,
> to simplify the application implementation.
>
>  This is just my thinking at this particular point of time. Some other
> people can have  their own use cases based on their design and
> implementation.
>
>
>  Thanks,
> Kiran.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On 28 August 2013 23:27, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 1) When a getUserMedia() is called, it will prompt for user acceptance.
>> If
>> > the user closes the pop up, then the application is not receiving any
>> error.
>> > So I would like to suggest that getUserMedia should respond with
>> > permission_denied error.
>> >
>> > 2) After calling getUserMedia(), the pop-up for user acceptance is
>> waiting
>> > indefinitely for user acceptance. It would be better, if that prompt
>> gets
>> > timed out after some time, and send a negative status response to the
>> > applications (the response may be permission_denied or user_time_out
>> error).
>>
>>  It's possible to regard both of these as browser implementation
>> features.  Is there anything specific that you believe that the API
>> needs to support?
>>
>
>
>