W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Please review the updated Streams API

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:09:54 +0100
Message-ID: <52A499D2.2040203@alvestrand.no>
To: Rob Manson <robman@mob-labs.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
Thank you for posting the link.

As written, this specification shows how to send an uninterpreted, 
unsegmented stream of bytes over an API interface.

Since none of our interfaces (except possibly the output of the Recorder 
interface) is specified in terms of uninterpreted, unsegmented streams 
of bytes, I don't think this is particularly useful to the APIs 
specified by this working group.

Thank you very much for explicitly naming the types you're specifying 
'ByteStream' so that it is trivial to see that this is the abstraction 
that this specification is relevant to.

On 12/05/2013 11:06 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you didn't see my earlier post to public-media-capture, there's an 
> updated W3C Streams API draft available for review and I've been asked 
> to also notify this WG to get your feedback on it's implications for 
> MediaStream, MediaStreamTrack, RTCPeerConnection and RTCDataChannels.
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
>
> I'd encourage you all to review it and provide any feedback or 
> thoughts you might have.
>
> As I mentioned in my post to public-media-capture, Feras and Takeshi 
> have been doing a great job integrating and filtering all the feedback 
> they've received and I've personally been pushing for as much focus on 
> making it as effective and useful for post-processing as possible. I'm 
> sure many of you here have a different perspective they would find 
> very valuable.
>
> Below is the email Feras sent to describe where this work is up to.
>
> roBman
>
>
>> On 12/4/13 11:27 AM, ext Feras Moussa wrote:
>> The editors of the Streams API have reached a milestone where we feel
>> many of the major issues that have been identified thus far are now
>> resolved and incorporated in the editors draft.
>>
>> The editors draft [1] has been heavily updated and reviewed the past
>> few weeks to address all concerns raised, including:
>> 1. Separation into two distinct types -ReadableByteStream and
>> WritableByteStream
>> 2. Explicit support for back pressure management
>> 3. Improvements to help with pipe( ) and flow-control management
>> 4. Updated spec text and diagrams for further clarifications
>>
>> There are still a set of bugs being tracked in bugzilla. We would like
>> others to please review the updated proposal, and provide any feedback
>> they may have (or file bugs).
>>
>> Thanks.
>> -Feras
>>
>>
>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
>
>
Received on Sunday, 8 December 2013 16:10:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC