W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Constraints and MediaRecorder

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:00:26 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaxFKAQy1Fe8z15HS3gze1a2yui4tbn0_1qmWurb=u3jA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> My point is that MediaRecorder is quite a bit more like gUM than it
> is like RTCPeerConnection and so the same reasoning which kept
> it in gUM equally well applies to MediaRecorder.
>

Even if we grant the antecedent, I don't think the implication follows.

So, again, I ask
> what argument do you have for why constraints are bad for
> MediaRecorder that don't equally well apply to gUM? [0]
>

I think the downsides of Constraints are present for gUM as well as
MediaRecorder, but possibly the use-cases for gUM justify the complexity.

Also, the cost of creating a MediaRecorder you don't want can be made very
low, which makes certain kinds of capability testing easier. That's less
true with gUM.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 23:00:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC