On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 14:38, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> > {
> > frameratePriorty: 0.5,
> > resolutionPriority: 0.1,
> > qualityPriority: 1.0
> > }
> >
>
> I think that I meant this:
>
> resources: 1, // relative proportion of resources to allocate
> // this could be somewhat deterministic and measurable
> preferences: {
> framerate: 0.5,
> resolution: 0.1,
> quality: 0.8
> }
>
> > Meaning "I want really high quality, with good framerate, and I don't
> care
> > about resolution."
>
> Yep.
>
> > I actually had just that in an earlier design, but the complexity didn't
> > seem worth it. But it's certainly worth discussing.
>
> I see this as less complex than what you proposed. Fewer knobs to try
> to understand.
>
If you add it to what I have, then it's more complex. If you add it and
then remove other things, then it's less complex. Perhaps get rid of
minQuality and maxQuality with the setup you have, which could end up
making it less complex overall. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a
"proposal 2", fill in all the use cases with examples, and then compare the
two.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 22:57:20 UTC