- From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:51:21 -0400
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvKUA3zssFmUNRyqC0=8joq2wODPc-NUzP--Qy46sOzjg@mail.gmail.com>
I would agree with Stefan that a lot of this can be addressed by something like constraints mechanism, but this would require defining of additional constraints or ability to provide/modify constraints without adding or removing MediaStreams or MediaStreamTracks. For instance if all I want to change the target bitrate for the video codec, why would I want to do anything else except change the target bitrate. I would not want to do a complete O/A exchange. I would not want to add and remove MediaStream either. Stefan's proposals are good but it is in no way a complete solution and would require more discussion. _____________ Roman Shpount On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote: > On 10/03/2012 07:40 PM, Roman Shpount wrote: > >> Once again, I have mentioned my concern for the shortcomings of the >> current API in >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**0102.htm<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.htm> >> <http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-webrtc/**2012Sep/0102.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.html> >> > >> It looks like some additional API surface is needed to address my >> concerns ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/** >> 0109.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html>). >> >> I am not sure why this is being ignored... >> > Because you didn't reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/** > Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**0109.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html>where Stefan suggested that the present work on applying and modifying > constraints seems like a reasonable approach to follow with regard to the > issues you raised? > > Seriously, when the chairs say that "we think this is being addressed by > ongoing work", the ball is back in your court to say whether you think this > is correct or not. > > Harald > > >
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 18:51:52 UTC