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

RE: Constraints as a separate interface

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:06:37 +0000
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281087B1B@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
What I have now is the following, which is generated by respec:

MediaStreamTrack implements Constrainable;

All instances of the MediaStreamTrack type are defined to also implement the Constrainable interface.

This is placed _below_ the full webIDL for MediaStreamTrack, because it seemed to me from looking at the WebIDL spec and respec that was where it was supposed to go.  It's easy to miss, though, and I wonder if it would be better to put it right above the IDL for MediaStreamTrack.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [mailto:jib@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Martin Thomson
Cc: Jim Barnett; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Constraints as a separate interface

On 10/16/13 4:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 16 October 2013 10:59, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, MediaRecorder already inherits from EventTarget and 
>> webidl doesn't allow multiple inheritance, so that one gets a little ugly.
> It does allow mixins using the "implements" keyword, which might suck, 
> but could be used as a workaround.

So,

     MediaStreamTrack implements Constrainable;
     MediaRecorder implements Constrainable;

That's a lot nicer. :-)

TIL - Thanks!

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 21:07:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:20 UTC