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

Re: Cloning and sharing of MediaStreamTracks - worth it?

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:08:50 +0200
Message-ID: <519B0162.2050906@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-05-06 17:15, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Just a quick question....
>
> I have checked with the implementors, and the change to allow both
> cloning and copying of MediaStreamTracks is going to be quite a
> significant burden - there's quite a bit of code there that is written
> with the assumption that one MediaStreamTrack belongs to one and only
> one MediaStream, because the previous version of the API guaranteed that.
>
> I have understood that Adam feels strongly that the design where a
> MediaStreamTrack (with its muted state, constraints and everything else)
> can be a member of multiple MediaStreams is a better design.

The core of the proposal was to get rid of implicit cloning and make the 
API more intuitive. For example, addTrack() would really add the 
argument track instead of creating a clone under the hood.

The ability to add the same track instance to several media streams is 
merely a consequence of the API changes; not the design itself. I don't 
feel that strongly about it.

/Adam
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 05:09:15 UTC

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