Re: Constraints 2014

On 03/26/2014 02:18 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 3/25/14 8:02 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>> I am now of this opinion as well. But if we're not going to be able 
>> to get there, I prefer "Constraints 2014" as a slimmed-down version 
>> of constraints that can be implemented more readily.
>
> Great.
>
>> However, I am opposed to the C2014 pattern of dumping both audio and 
>> video qualifiers into a single bag of options. sourceId already 
>> points out the danger in doing so; I think we should avoid future 
>> trouble and scope qualifiers to a media type, e.g.
>>
>>  var constraints = {
>> video: {
>>   require: ["width", "height"],
>> width: { min: 640, max: 1280 },
>> height: { min: 480, max: 768 },
>> aspectRatio: 16/9,
>> frameRate: 60,
>>     }
>>   };
>
> Sure, that is certainly doable, if people prefer, or we could perhaps 
> do videoSourceId and audioSourceId? Things don't seem to overlap much 
> otherwise.

If they don't overlap, to me that's an argument for keeping each in its 
own bag.
If they overlap, to me that's an argument for keeping each in its own 
bag; separation of concerns.

It seems hard to find an argument that would convince me that mixing 
audio and video constraints into one bag is a good idea :-)

(this is about how we pass the bag/bags to gUM. That's separate from the 
question of whether having different type definitions for the two is a 
great idea or not.)