- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:31:03 +0100
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 02/04/2014 02:13 PM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> How should we proceed with this proposal? I don't think we will gain
> as much when it comes to simplicity if we just remove addStream(), but
> keep the concept of tracks belonging to a MediaStream when they are
> sent over an RTCPeerConnection (as Stefan argues in a branch of this
> thread). That was at least what I had in mind when I argued against
> addStream() in [1].
I think communicating the stream concept (which streams exist that have
this track as part of it) is important; if we don't communicate it, it's
impossible to reconstruct the streams on the receiving side.
WRT addStream(), if we add addStream(), I think we should define
addStream() in terms of addTrack(): "AddStream() must have identical
semantics to
for track in stream.getAllTracks() {
pc.AddTrack(track)
}
"
(which also argues that we make the specification simpler if we have
getAllTracks in addition to getAudioTracks and getVideoTracks, because
we don't have to worry if a third type of track is added)
>
> /Adam
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Nov/0055.html
>
--
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 18:31:33 UTC