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

Re: New version of constrainable section of getusermedia

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:09:27 -0500
Message-ID: <52F55997.8030503@mozilla.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On 2/6/2014 5:55 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 05:00 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> If Adam went through and found no part
>> ofhttp://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html  spec that needed
>> constraints, why would we use the Constrainable interface? Settings
>> and Capabilities alone are mere dictionary getters and setters.
> As defined in getusermedia.html, neither Settings() nor Capabilities()
> are setters; Capabilities() returns what it is possible to set, while
> Settings() reports what has been set.

Fine, and by "set" you mean apply constraints. If you tie the concepts 
together then out they all go.

What I meant was: Capabilites and Settings alone are not reasons to keep 
Constrainable, because, implementation-wise, there's no meat to these 
concepts. Plain dictionary setters and getters is all you need to 
implement those concepts without constraints. i.e. if we're not applying 
constraints we don't need Constrainable.

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 22:10:02 UTC

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