Re: A thorny device selection issue

On 12/13/2013 06:46 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
> How will this work if the user want to change the output device after
> some time.
> If we want to support that king feature, then we need to add API
> something like

I'm not sure I understand the question.....
if there was no enforced binding of the devices, the app could simply
pick the devices he wanted; the groupid just gives information about
what it might want to present together.

The problem is when the underlying OS forces device binding.



>
> addMediaGroup()
> {
>    deviceId: zzz
>    kind: audiooutput
>    label: yyy
>    groupId: 37
>    bound: true
> }
> removeMediaGroup().
> {
>    deviceId: xxx
>    kind: audiooutput
>    label: BluetoothHeadsetSpeaker
>    groupId: 37
>    bound: false
>
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Kiran.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand
> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/12/2013 12:35 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>     > Is bluetooth a real-life example? Meaning, are you sure that
>     when you
>     > enable the bluetooth microphone you also enable the headset?
>
>
>     On Android, it seems that this is the case.
>     On laptops - not so much.
>
>     The specifics vary between operating systems.
>
>     > It seems odd to be that this would be the case; otherwise, how
>     do they
>     > "mute" the microphone (hardware stays on but software dumps the
>     samples)?
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Gili
>     >
>     > On 11/12/2013 11:17 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> we have encountered a Real Fun Issue in our management of input /
>     >> output devices.
>     >>
>     >> There are certain devices on certain platforms where there is an
>     >> inextricable linkage between an input and an output device -
>     when one
>     >> selects the input device, the output device is selected too - and
>     >> what's more, the entire platform switches to use that device as its
>     >> input and output devices.
>     >>
>     >> This will, of course, confuse the hell out of apps that think that
>     >> they can manipulate the devices independently.
>     >>
>     >> So the question becomes: Should we expose this state of affairs to
>     >> Javascript?
>     >>
>     >> If no: No problem for us. Maybe for the users.
>     >>
>     >> If yes: How?
>     >>
>     >> One possibility is to extend getMediaDevices yet again - we already
>     >> have a groupId; we could add to it a "bound" field (a boolean,
>     >> default false), to indicate that this group is tightly bound
>     together:
>     >>
>     >> {
>     >>    deviceId: xxx
>     >>    kind: audioinput
>     >>    label: BluetoothHeadsetMicrophone
>     >>    groupId: 37
>     >>    bound: true
>     >> }
>     >> {
>     >>    deviceId: yyyy
>     >>    kind: audiooutput
>     >>    label: BluetoothHeadsetSpeaker
>     >>    groupid: 37
>     >>    bound: true
>     >> }
>     >>
>     >> Applications that know to look for it will then "know" that these
>     >> will be bound together.
>     >>
>     >> Doesn't seem particularly elegant. It might get the job done.
>     >>
>     >> Thoughts?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.