Re: Spec question: Using settings dictionaries instead of MediaConstraints

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 06/19/2012 08:30 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2012 3:22 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>>> <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluff**y@cisco.com <fluffy@cisco.com>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     This seems like good proposal, one comment on a small detail.
>>>
>>>     On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>>
>>>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.**IncludeAudio = true/false // forces
>>>     m=audio line to be included
>>>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.**IncludeVideo = true/false // forces
>>>     m=video line to be included
>>>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.**UseVoiceActivityDetection =
>>> true/false
>>>     // includes CN codecs if true
>>>
>>>     I think these three should be constraints, not settings because a
>>>     given browser may not support any of them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, what does that mean for applications?
>>>
>>
>> I can conceive of a browser implementing audio but not video.  And a
>> gateway or other stand-alone WebRTC box/functionality might include JS
>> and these JS apis for ease of programming (and might be audio-only).
>> (I'd try to avoid it in production, probably, but even that might not be
>> needed with modern JS JIT speed so long as it didn't have to tear down
>> and restart all the time.)
>>
>> CN codecs: I dislike them anyways.  :-)  An implementation definitely
>> could avoid including those.
>>
>
> Many codecs have built in CN modes. I guess for those it is more a
> question of being able to switch off the VAD.
>
>
I agree with the scenarios mentioned - my question was mostly about what
does having these settings be "constraints" vs "settings" mean for users of
the API. Is it simply that the call must fail if the request can't be
satisfied?