Re: Canceling pending getUserMedia() call

What happened to "a more general discussion [...] about permissions and 
what APIs we should offer around them"? - We seem to have moved on to 
where to stick the API (which is irresistible, so I'll jump in).

Can we sidestep the whole fetch debate with: 
navigator.mediaDevices.cancelOutstandingGumRequests() ?

Making promises cancellable is a terrible idea, because a promise can be 
passed around to several functions without granting control to any of 
them. Nevermind that any function acting on said control would affect 
all the other ones (action-at-a-distance). Control has to live upstream 
in the tree, and it's not for the recipient of a promise to break, 
resolve or reject it.

The only other approach I though had legs was the cancellableToken 
(because inputs and outputs: Promise is an output, control should be an 
input. As tempting as it is to overload the returned object, it'll muck 
up the first wrapper that comes along), especially the promise-version 
Martin suggested, but hopefully we wont need such fine control here.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

On 4/26/15 3:46 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Indeed. This seems to be a more complicated topic than one might wish:
>
> https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Harald Alvestrand 
> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>
>     Den 24. april 2015 20:02, skrev Cullen Jennings (fluffy):
>     >
>     > Just popping this up to top of stack - it did not seem we have
>     figured out how to resolve this yet and I will note it has been
>     opened as
>     >
>     > https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/127
>
>
>     It is noted.
>
>     The conclusion from the discussion was that the common desire was for
>     cancellation not timeout, but that there was that there is no common
>     pattern defined in the W3C ecosystem for cancelling a promise yet.
>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >> On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net
>     <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi, let's assume that during a call/session a peer wants to add his
>     >> local video so gUM is called. But before he accepts the gUM
>     prompt the
>     >> call/session is ended by the remote peer.
>     >>
>     >> Is there anyway to make the pending gUM prompt to disappear? I
>     mean:
>     >> without waiting for the user to press "Accept" and then
>     ignoring and
>     >> closing the given MediaStream.
>     >>
>     >> In that scenario and given that the user does know that the
>     >> call/session has ended, he may prefer to click on "Deny" (why
>     to open
>     >> my webcam when the call has already ended?), which would cause the
>     >> website to get into the gUM blacklist of the browser.
>     >>
>     >> Found nothing in the spec.
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>     >> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>     >>
>     >>
>