Re: Changes to the Stop method

On 2013-09-26 15:55, Adam Bergkvist wrote:
> 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.

I don't see a reason to change anything. Let stop() mean stopping the 
source. We should then remove any leftovers that hint towards something 
else.

>
> /Adam
>

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 15:52:32 UTC