- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:55:52 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-09-26 14:04, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> When two tracks in the same tab are fed from the same source, >>> stop() >>> will cause both of them to be ended. The one on which the call was >>> not made will have an event named “ended” fired at it. >> To me, that sounds like a reasonable interpretation. An alternative >> could be that the camera (microphone) is not turned off until all tracks >> it feeds have been stopped. The advantage of your interpretation is that >> it is simpler to revoke access - you'd only have to stop one track (I >> guess that you'd have to call getUserMedia to use that source again). > > That's one reason why I posted this .... some might have that alternate > interpretation. I think the words currently in the draft are pretty > explicit - that stop() actually stops the source - but people have been > thinking different things over time, and might not have noticed what the > draft currently says. > > If we detect a consensus to change it, we can. I agree that the stop method algorithm is pretty clear about stopping the source. But I think there are some leftovers from previous language that hints towards Stefan's alternative interpretation (i.e. source reference counting and stop when count reaches zero). I don't have a clear preference between the two approaches. We should really try to make it easy for apps that wants to behave in a nice way and release resources when they are not used any more. /Adam
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 13:56:20 UTC