Re: UserMediaSettings

On 3/18/14 10:06 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 05:20 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> On 3/17/14 2:33 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-15 23:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>>> On 14 March 2014 16:24, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Two optional constrains, the first one saying the source is A and 
>>>>> the second one saying the source is B.
>>>> Or you could try this:
>>>>
>>>> navigator.getUserMedia({ 'sourceId': 'A' }, success, function() {
>>>>     navigator.getUserMedia({ 'sourceId': 'B' }, success, failure);
>>>> });
>>> Hm. Would you not need to push in a "require: 'sourdeId'" in the first
>>> gUM? Otherwise it would be "prefer" and if treated like optional mean
>>> that gUM would succeed even if it could not be satisfied.
>>
>> Correct, things are optional by default, so it would be:
>>
>> navigator.getUserMedia({ sourceId: 'A', require: 'sourceId' }, succ, 
>> function(){
>>    navigator.getUserMedia({ sourceId: 'B' }, succ, failure);
>> });
>>
>>
>>>> It seems like the example is basically contrived, so why not incur the
>>>> additional user prompt?
>>
>> Yes, it is hard to judge what's acceptable when we don't root things 
>> in real use-cases.
>>
>> SourceId strikes me as the "anti-constraint", i.e. how one subverts 
>> the normal process, so we should perhaps not design the normal 
>> process around it?
>>
>
> I think it works well as a constraint - sometimes you definitely want 
> a specific source, sometimes you would prefer one but can live with 
> anything, sometimes you just want the system to pick one.

Sure, but when would you prefer two? That's the case you brought forth, 
and we're asking what the use-case for that is.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 18:40:42 UTC