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

Re: Update of Doohickey/AddTrack proposal

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:01:36 +0100
Message-ID: <52F8DBC0.5040305@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2014-02-06 19:31, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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.

Just because *we* don't signal it, doesn't mean that such information 
can't be sent (if necessary for the app). Simple (and legacy compatible) 
apps would perhaps use a single stream for all incoming tracks, and 
multi MediaStream apps could signal a list of track id's that makes up a 

Which streams exist and what tracks they contain is subject to change. 
If that's something we want to reflect to the other side then that could 
involve a lot of signaling (that needs to be specified but could be made 
easier if it was app specific).

Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 14:02:02 UTC

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