W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2015

Re: ReplaceTrack and track.id (Re: ReplaceTrack - need to evaluate alternatives)

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:55:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFazVAoa3XR7deadeQ-FD4B_y5PxSc+TSRZJLcmrNJ1fg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 15 April 2015 at 14:41, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> > There just one issue I'm not sure what to do about:  if we use MID
> instead
> > of MSID, how do we signal the synchronization groups (ie the MediaStreams
> > the MediaStreamTracks are supposed to go in).
>
>
> Adam and I had a group ID proposal that was used for the partial
> offer-answer proposal.  Attach that to the LS group, perhaps.
> ​
>

​How would that fit into PeerConnection.addTrack?  Would it be
PeerConnection.addTrack(label, track, mediaStreams) still?  Or would it be
PeerConnection.addTrack(label, track, groupIDs)?​



> ​
>


> BTW, immutability > mutability every time.


​I heartily agree.​



> If we can settle on using
> mid, then this is fine.  I would prefer if the mid value were chosen
> by the browser though.
>

​Any particular reason?  I know it has some constraints that will catch
developers by surprise the first time (basically, no special characters),
and it should probably be short (since it will go in header extensions,
etc).  But other than that?​
​

​​
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 21:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC