Re: Proposal: Constraints as dictionaries

On 2013-11-21 21:49, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> It's also a better fit with Constrainable.applyConstraints() since
>> optional constraints don't really make sense in that case. I'm
>> imagining feeding applyConstraints() with the same type as the
>> elements in the array given to getUserMedia().
>
> Interesting. To be clear, I wasn't proposing that, but I'm glad the
> decoupling opens up the discussion. Feeding it the array itself would
> match how it works today.
>
> You have a point. Constraints let you be imprecise, saying things like
> "give me something like 40 - 50 fps, but no lower than 1024x768". This
> abstraction seems like overkill when you can read the capabilities of
> the device.
>
> Just to be sure: track. applyConstraints() can never pick a different
> camera, right? That seems obvious inside a stream with other tracks, but
> it's never spelled out. If it can't then I don't see why we need
> constraints here, setSettings() would suffice

Even with applyConstraints() you might still want express something as 
an acceptable range and then check the setting what you're actually 
getting. Also, even though the applyConstraints() call succeeded, there 
might be changing circumstances that prevents the UA from living up to 
the developers wishes. The constraint concept has a way to deal with that.

/Adam

Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 09:24:15 UTC