- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:43:54 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
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.
Gili
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 05:44:38 UTC