On 05/09/2013 1:43 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote: > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861 > > --- Comment #13 from Kiran <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> --- > 1. I have raised this proposal, as an addition to callbacks raised by Gili, to > avoid congestion of callbacks. If required (based on the suggestions) I am > ready to propose it in a new thread for discussing it in webrtc-mailing lists. > > 2. IMHO, there should be two default values, one for minimum and the other for > maximum. (To avoid the abnormal/unusual values, for both minimum > bandwidth/bitrate and maximum bandwidth/bitrate). > > Analysing this further more, timers should behave like this. > > #. First it should wait for the specified time before firing the first call > back. > > #. If browser fired a callback and still, if there is no action/response from > the application, it should continue to send callbacks after that specified > time. > > #. Either if the state becomes proper before firing the callback (for some > specific time), or if the browser receives the action response from the > application, then there should not be any callback. > > Regarding "Add timeout property" or "TimedMinMaxConstraint" -- can you please > explain this more in brief. > +1. I like this approach. Every constraint should have min/max fence conditions and a callback should get fired when the fence is crossed, while respecting the callback/timer frequency as Kiran mentioned. GiliReceived on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 05:44:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC