- From: Erik Lagerway <elagerway@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:16:59 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Erik Lagerway - m. 604.562.8647 > On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 14 April 2015 at 13:40, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote: >>> 1. Why not just setTrack instead of replaceTrack? I don't mean to >>> bikeshed, but we have lots of setters in the code, and no "replacers" >>> in the API. >> >> >> +1 >> >> In addition to Peter's comments, there are at least a few implementations >> elsewhere that are well along now using setTrack. For us, changing it to >> replaceTrack now would introduce a lot of work. > > I don't mean to be rude, but that's a bad reason to pick the wrong name. > > If setTrack() was an acceptable name, then we would be better off with: > > sender.track = theReplacement; > > As I understand it, replaceTrack can fail, asynchronously, if the > underlying track is incapable of producing a compatible RTP stream. > That might not be the case in current implementations, but those > implementations are probably not using encoding cameras that can't > change codecs.
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 21:17:29 UTC