Re: Cloning and sharing of MediaStreamTracks - worth it?

On 5/10/13 12:09 AM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> Well, we’d better agree on this  soon or we’ll be chasing our tails
> forever.  People have radically different understandings of what a Track
> actually does. I think that’s one reason that the discussions of cloning
> and constraints/settings never seems to progress.

Jim, I agree fully. But I don't think Martin and I really differ. I 
think we're both saying that

* enabled and the set of constraints are track properties
* mute and the media are source properties. The app can get info about 
the media currently generated by probing the state of the source serving 
the track: 
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#source-states


Stefan
>
> -Jim
>
> *From:*Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 4:09 PM
> *To:* Jim Barnett
> *Cc:* public-media-capture@w3.org; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Stefan
> Håkansson LK; Robert O'Callahan
> *Subject:* RE: Cloning and sharing of MediaStreamTracks - worth it?
>
> "Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com
> <mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > But see Stefan's email; _everything_ is a source attribute except for
> 'enabled'.  I don't think that Track is doing much work.
>
> That isn't the model that I described. A large part of the state of the
> source is actually transparent. The set of constraints, enabled, and,
> consequently, the precise form of the track output are track properties.
>
> As far as I can tell, the only concrete properties the source has are
> invariant: mute, the media itself. The rest are derived from the set of
> constraints provided by the enabled tracks that the source serves. Those
> are the properties I'm interested in cloning.
>

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 06:17:40 UTC