- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:49:25 -0700
- To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 25 March 2013 15:34, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote: > I think this is good. A couple of questions: > 1. Why does MediaStream need a state at all? Is it just a convenient shorthand for the combination of its Tracks' state? I don't believe that it does need a state. However, we did have a discussion about this and some people expressed a desire for a convenient rollup of state AND I've been warned off of re-opening issues. > 2. Is it really simpler to have a single onstatechange handler? The code inside every one of them will be a big case statement: if started do this, if ended do this, etc. I would think that you might get cleaner code by breaking each out into its own handler. If we wrote a standard state machine diagram (UML or the like) for a Track, it will show the individual started/ended events, and not a generic statechange event. I realize that this may be just a matter of taste, but I think that the easier we make it for the programmer to visualize the UML statechart, the better the code will be. I'm not really sure which is better. I was simply looking for consistency with other interfaces that we've built recently. I don't use case statements any more anyway. One advantage of having fewer states on each state variable is that you can isolate logic.
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 22:49:53 UTC