- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 02:11:08 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] > Sent: den 19 maj 2014 04:05 > To: public-media-capture@w3.org > Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org > Subject: Re: [Bug 25773] Calling stop should generate ended event > > On 18 May 2014 08:02, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote: > > yah - I think that 25248 came to the wrong conclusion. It's really nice to be > > able to have the same clean up code regardless of how it ended. > > I think that I've been arguing toward the same conclusion as Cullen. > It's much easier to reason about a state machine if all the > transitions act the same. It is also far more convenient. that way. Are you then arguing for the stop() method to just schedule a stop or should the track still be ended on the next line of code? /Adam
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 02:11:39 UTC