Re: Conclusions from the constraints spec review

On 2014-02-11 17:47, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 2/11/14 7:02 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>> On 2014-02-11 10:51, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>> In my message "More thoughts on Constraints, and a proposal", I
>>> described some objections to the Constraints abstraction being used
>>> anywhere, including getUserMedia.
>> You did, and there was a couple of "+1" responses.
>
> But no real counter-arguments.

To be fair, people have expressed the opinion that they like the current 
solution better.

>
>> But given the how long Constraints has been in the document, and how
>> many times we've iterated over it, and how many that are silent, I think
>> there is no consensus for replacing Constraints.
>
> If silence means no, then one might ask why we have constraints in the
> first place.

My view is that we discussed Constraints over and over a long time ago, 
and eventually ended up with the current design. That was not silence, 
it was a discussion. And Constraints to me is the baseline; it has been 
in the document for a very long time.

>
> I would be careful to interpret silence as anything but indifference,
> perhaps to the whole constraints pattern. I don't think most people care
> enough to bother until it affects them.

It becomes very difficult to make progress if we, in situation when we 
have had one design discussed and agreed to a long time ago, being in 
the draft for a long time, can't consider it as the baseline.

If there comes an alternative proposal along in that situation, I think 
the natural thing is to consider silence as not supporting to change to 
the new proposal.

I also think that there are one implementation of (at least a limited 
one) Constraints constraints, and there is some experience from app 
developers using it.

>
> I piped in once I tried to implement it. Roc became vocal when he saw
> what it would do to the MediaRecorder api. I think that is natural.
>
>> The merits of making a separate interface of it can be debated, but that
>> is a separate question we can conclude later when we know more of its
>> applicability in other specs IMO.
>
> Is that a vote to fold Constrainable back into gUM in the interim?

Constrainable *is* in gUM - it is only written up in a way that makes it 
re-usable for other specs.

>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>> 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 Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:04:29 UTC