- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:45:45 +1000
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nOGBNrcnQkxoOGkPnR6=jft+jhZrbYEJ2agjzr7gNaPg@mail.gmail.com>
What would be the advantage of treating tracks differently depending on who created them? Silvia. On 27 Sep 2013 22:28, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > Reawakening an old discussion (tracked in bug 22270). > > The suggestions made are (I think) three different ones: > > - Create two classes of MediaStream, one which adds tracks under UA > control, and one which adds tracks under Javascript control. Only the > second has the addTrack and removeTrack methods. getUserMedia and > peerconnections produce the first type. > > - Let addTrack and removeTrack fail when a MediaStream comes from > getUserMedia or peerconnections. > > - No change. Tracks can be added to any MediaStream. > > Should we make a decision here? > > > On 04/18/2013 11:09 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: > >> On 2013-04-17 12:23, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Adam Bergkvist >>> <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com <mailto:adam.bergkvist@**ericsson.com<adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Since they're only used to listen to when the UA updates the track >>> set they wouldn't be used when it's only the application that >>> manages the track set. >>> >>> This is a bit confusing in the current spec. The description of the >>> events say that they are fired whenever a track is added, which is >>> misleading since they are not fired in the addTrack()/removeTrack() >>> algorithms. It's fixed for the next release. >>> >>> >>> We should also fire them when addTrack()/removeTrack() are called, >>> shouldn't we? >>> >> >> We currently don't do that since these methods directly adds or removes >> the track. In the case where it's the UA that modifiess the track set, the >> track is added/removed in the same event loop iteration as the >> addtrack/removetrack event is fired. >> >> I don't have a strong preference about this; if we could find similar >> behavior in established APIs I would be happy to align. >> >> /Adam >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 21:46:12 UTC