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.

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