- From: ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ <tommyw@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:59:17 +0200
- To: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALLKCfNPLAzQOq+BcDaQ4kHuLWEkPZi3aLgGZWop8y-oRY=fGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Yeah, I understood that during the office hour call. Dunno, your suggestion seems less elegant and clear but that might just be because I am quite new to the JS world. Can you list some use cases where your suggestion will really make a difference? /Tommy On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 19:45, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) wrote: > > Whereas I have nothing against changing the configuration string to a JS > object, I don't like the conversion from asynchronous result to a > synchronous one. Opening a webcam can take many seconds, which means that > the JS world is stuck during that interval. > > The proposal doesn't suggest that the operation is asynchronous, you do > have to attach an event listener or a callback on the MediaStream that is > returned. It behaves exactly like XHR in this regard. > > Cheers, > -Anant > > -- Tommy Widenflycht, Senior Software Engineer Google Sweden AB, Kungsbron 2, SE-11122 Stockholm, Sweden Org. nr. 556656-6880 And yes, I have to include the above in every outgoing email according to EU law.
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 06:59:41 UTC