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

Re: Doohickey vs. MediaStream confusion

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:00 +0000
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A222C88B6882744D8D4B9681B315889023CE8E14@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
On 02/12/14 09:57, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> Hi,
>
> reading the doohickey branch of webrtc-pc [1] there is one piece that
> confuses me a bit.
>
> In section 4.3.1 it is said (probably this part should be moved to
> somewhere in section 5 "RTP media API") that if no MediaStream was given
> as argument to the corresponding RTPSender, the RTPReceiver should
> create one.
>
> Is that really the way we want it to work? I could imagine a situation
> where several tracks are sent over, with the intention to assemble them
> together in a specific way to a few/couple of MediaStreams at the
> receiving end, and then several MediaStreams are created for no use.
>
> And it does not help the legacy (one audio and one video track
> communication) case either since two MediaStreams are created, but you
> want one (for synced display using a video element).
>
> Would it not make more sense to say that for situations when no
> MediaStream is given as argument to RTPSender the corresponding ontrack
> event would include one RTPReceiver and a MediaStreamTrack, but no
> MediaStream?
>

I agree.

It's not a surprise to the app if no MediaStream is present (since it 
didn't reference a MediaStream when doing addTrack()).

/Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 09:13:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:42 UTC