- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:36:27 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 15 september 2011 14:16, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> We think the idea with parent and child relations between MediaStream >> objects, where tracks suddenly appear in child streams and other side >> effects, will be confusing for web developers and doesn't really add >> anything. >> >> It would be more flexible and easier for developers to grasp if a new >> MediaStream, constructed from another MediaStream, would have tracks >> that are independent from its "parent" (even though they map to the >> same underlying audio and/or video sources). The new MediaStream >> would also get its own label. > Hm - I'm not sure how that translates into pictures. Are you > suggesting that when you clone a stream, you attach the input > to the new stream object to the (conceptual) *input* of the > cloned-from stream object rather than its (conceptual) > output, and there being no way one MediaStream element can > affect another MediaStream element directly? Yes. I see a MediaStream object as a conceptual collection of media sources. > This means that MediaStream objects can't be used to model > processing elements, which may actually be a Good Thing. Or > not; I'm off to read the Audio prcessing proposal again in > preparation for a coordination meeting between the W3C Audio, > DAP and WEBRTC chairs later today - I may form more opinions. At a later stage, we could introduce a media processing object, which takes a MediaStream as its input and produces a new MediaStream as its output. In this case it's the actual media contents in the output MediaStream that is dependent on the input source(s). BR Adam
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 13:36:52 UTC