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

Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 02:41:41 +0000
To: Stefan Håkansson <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com>
Message-ID: <B55C20B0-F87F-4FEC-9D0B-F288BF852F85@cisco.com>

On May 1, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/14 22:23, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 29, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 29, 2014 4:54 PM, "Jan-Ivar Bruaroey" <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/29/14 7:07 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was talking about clone-on-RTCPeerConneciton::addStream
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Forcing me, as a user, to clone my MST if, and only if, I want to add it to more than one PeerConnection seems to have little to no cost to me, and seems like a reduction in complexity.
>>> 
>>> I might be missing something, but why do we need cloning?
>>> 
>> 
>> I assumed we would get rid of cloning once we added doohickeys.
> 
> The MST is the API where we can set things like resolution, framerate, etc.
> 
> Assume you want to record the same content in two different resolutions, 
> they way to do it today would be to clone the track, and apply different 
> settings, and record both IIUC.
> 
> Sure, we could move the surface where you define desired framerate, 
> resolution, etc. to the consumer all together - but that would be a big 
> change quite late.

Good point. Nope - I don’t want to do any chances that large right now. Current design will get the job done so no real advantage to changing. 
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 02:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:40 UTC