- From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:12:12 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com>, Victoria Kirst <vrk@google.com>
>> While we are there, s/Infos/Info/ - "Info" is short for "Information", which is already plural. Thank you! That's been bugging me... :-) -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 1:06 PM To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Justin Uberti; public-media-capture@w3.org; Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ); Victoria Kirst Subject: Re: Synchronous versus asynchronous getSourceInfos Yes, this is something that should be made asynchronous. While we are there, s/Infos/Info/ - "Info" is short for "Information", which is already plural. On 4 June 2013 11:36, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > This seems like a good idea. > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: >> >> getSourceInfos is currently defined as synchronous [1] , but it will >> need to reach down into the media subsystem to enumerate capture devices. >> Previously, we have suggested that APIs like this should be async, to >> avoid blocking the JS thread while waiting for the low-level >> operation to complete. For getSourceInfos, I think this is still true >> - even if we pre-enumerate devices when the browser starts, it is >> possible that a page may make a request before the enumeration has >> completed, and will still need to block. >> >> Therefore I suggest that as part of the futures discussion, we >> consider whether getSourceInfos should be async, either >> >> void getSourceInfos(successCallback, failureCallback) >> >> or >> >> Future getSourceInfos() >> >> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#methods-1 >> >
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 20:14:25 UTC