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

RE: Doohickeys - slightly another take

From: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snandaku@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:07:24 +0000
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <37D91FC30D69DE43B61E5EEADD959F180D101789@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>

________________________________
From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [jib@mozilla.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:21 AM
To: Martin Thomson; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Doohickeys - slightly another take

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.

>> Suhas >> I was re-using the constrainable interface from the MediaCapture W3C specification where it is applied on MediaStreamTracks.

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 Monday, 28 April 2014 05:07:53 UTC

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