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

Re: Mediastream Recording implementation

From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:42:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAxVY9dxJJvGs3LPXk0QVWwcisq-yWgirwRcuT=EP76-Fa-1uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Thanks!


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

> MediaStream recording doesn't seem like an obvious candidate for Promises,
> because it doesn't have any  API calls with success and failure callbacks.
>  Image capture seems like a better fit for Promises, but I don't know what
> Giri's plans are.
>
> - Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:05 PM
> To: Greg Billock
> Cc: Michael[tm] Smith; public-media-capture@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mediastream Recording implementation
>
> Le vendredi 12 juillet 2013 à 08:55 -0700, Greg Billock a écrit :
>
> > What was the outcome of the call discussing webrtc API and Promises?
> > Any conclusions in that direction?
>
> There was reluctance in adopting promises for this version of getUserMedia
> given its current implementation status, and similar reluctance for
> PeerConnection due its growing current form adoption.
>
> As far as I can tell, the door was left open for Mediastream recording and
> Mediastream image capture.
>
> Dom
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 16:43:11 UTC

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