Re: asynchrony for addStream w/ error/success callbacks

On 12/01/14 02:07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-10 18:38, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On 10 January 2014 01:13, Stefan Håkansson LK
>>> <> 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:

Yes, and as I understand it the MediaStreams and MediaStreamTracks have 
been designed with that in mind.

> .
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>> 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 09:46:21 UTC