W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Doohickeys - slightly another take

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:21:42 -0400
Message-ID: <535BCF06.2030107@mozilla.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 4/21/14 2:47 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 1.  I think that this leaps to the conclusion that constraints are
> right without strong enough justification.  Constrainable is a
> powerfully generic tool, and I'd want to see stronger evidence that a
> less generic mechanism is not going to work before I'd be happy with
> this.

+1. There's no Constrainable in the WebRTC spec anymore.

>> flow1.applyConstraints({bandwidth: 150-400, direction:sendonly, 
>> simulcast-id:1, priortity:High});
>> flow2.applyConstraints({bandwidth:100-150, direction:sendonly, 
>> simulcast-id:1});
>> flow4.applyConstraints({priority:Low});

Can't you just "set" these settings? i.e. no runtime arbitration between 
multiple interests seems needed.

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 15:22:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:38 UTC