Re: Update of Doohickey/AddTrack proposal

On 2014-02-13 21:14, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 11:49, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
>> pc.AddTrack(track1)
>> (causes track1 to be sent without a stream)
>> pc.AddStreamID(stream1)
>> (causes nothing to happen - stream1 is empty)
>> stream1.AddTrack(track1)
>> (should this cause signalling that track1 is now a member of stream1?)
> That's a perverse case that I'd probably leave to the emergent
> properties of the system that we build and describe.  In this case, I
> don't think that it makes sense for the pc to do anything in response
> to this last addTrack() call.

I look forward to the complete proposal!

My feeling right now is that we're on our way to make something that is 
more complicated than what we have (with PC.addStream), and then I'm not 
sure we should change.

But I may very well be wrong - when we have a complete proposal it will 
be easier to judge.


Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 08:14:48 UTC