- From: Chris Needham via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:55:48 +0000
- To: public-tvcontrol@w3.org
@stevem-tw: Your new proposal looks good, but a few points came to mind: > The TVSource acts as a proxy for the various hardware and software resources needed to acquire a media stream [...] We've discussed a few names so far for the idea of "the set of resources dedicated to providing a stream" - TVTuner, Player, Session, and now TVSource. I think my preference is still for Session, although I'd probably name the interface TVMediaSession, which might help distinguish it from "session" as in cookies. But that said, I don't feel too strongly. > I think that simply getting a TVSource does not allocate any scarce resources: this only happens when a source is tuned to a channel. Yes, I agree. We'll also need to think about how we handle channel scanning in this new API structure. This is currently done on a per-source basis, so would we still need a TVSource interface (as currently written in the spec), and the ability to enumerate sources? (We should probably discuss this under issue #7; it may depend on whether we need to expose an API for scanning at all). FInally, would we need the `isSourceAvailable` method? I imagine the main use case for this is to check whether a subsequent call to `getSource` will succeed, which we can handle through the returned promise. Are there other use cases I've missed? -- GitHub Notification of comment by chrisn Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api/issues/4#issuecomment-273074303 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 09:55:54 UTC