Re: Constraints 2014

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 26/03/14 16:42, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> > On 26/03/14 01:03, 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.
> >>
> >> 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,
> >>       }
> >>     };
> >
> > I agree, this would be more natural, and also align better to
> > constraints use on a MediaStreamTrack (the kind - currently audio or
> > video - is already set).
> PS another advantage is that adding the capability to ask for more than
> one video or audio track with a gUM call is more straighforward.
> (Currently we have quite artificially limited it to one track of each
> type - but I can see more cameras being used, and the app asking for
> them in a single gUM call. This is for the future.).
>

It's not clear to me how this syntax fixes that problem.

However, if we are performing surgery on this structure
making the outer structure an array would allow duplicates,
so...

-Ekr

>
> >
> >
>
>
>