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

Re: asynchrony for addStream w/ error/success callbacks

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:02 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=JecRaWBDysdxqD2VM9ZGUSzZd+8WKQQ6i2kzpgFTKQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-10 18:38, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 10 January 2014 01:13, Stefan Håkansson LK
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> I may be wrong...
>> :)
>> I was planning to propose a change to the API that would necessitate
>> an error on addStream.  More on that later, it requires a better
>> explanation than I want to hide on this thread.
> Looking forward to it (and I sort of hope it will be addTrack rather
> than addStream)!

Just be aware: there's already an onaddtrack event in HTML5:


> But, without going into details, the current discussion seems to evolve
> around when the check of whether or not there are resources available to
> actually transmit the tracks of the added stream or not is carried out
> at addStream time, or later (createOffer); and how the application gets
> to know about that a track can not be sent (is it at addStream, by an
> event fired on the DooHickey, or by polling the stats API).
> I am fine with any way - but it is clear we need to agree.
> And I would argue that having that error at addStream is not that
> helpful, because things can change later. Say you addStream, and then
> add one more track to the MediaStream (this was really another argument
> why we should addTrack rather than addStream to PeerConnection). Or say
> you change resolution and framerate on a track being sent by working
> with the Constraints of that track, and now the PeerConnection can't
> handle it any more. And some people have been pointing out the CPU clock
> may be lowered in frequency due to overheating at any time.
> Stefan
Received on Sunday, 12 January 2014 01:07:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:53 UTC