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

Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 05:22:22 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CFDCB72@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 02/05/14 07:09, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 1 May 2014 19:41, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> Yeah, but my concern was with respect to implicit cloning.  We had, on
> and off, this idea that when a track is added to RTCPeerConnection, it
> would be cloned and the thing that the RTCPeerConnection owned would
> be a clone of that track with extra properties.  That's what I wanted
> to avoid.

I agree fully (and I haven't seen anyone having a different view).

Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 05:22:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:58 UTC