- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:34:13 -0700
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUH9F_SejzK5Q0dDTx7pHJoYn+51AERHdBf9-u02wSU6pQ@mail.gmail.com>
On the list we have had discussion around adding an RtpSenderInit parameter to PC.addTrack, and around adding PC.createRtpSender. Today I realized that RtpSenderInit could also be used the same way PC.createRtpSender is. So, I have two PRs to choose from: PR 271 (https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/271): + <dt>RTCRtpSender createRtpSender (DOMString kind)</dt> + + <dd> + <p>Equivalent to calling <code>addTrack(null)<code>, but + the returned RtpSender is configured to send a track of + the given <code>kind</code>. If the returned RtpSender is + later set to have a different track, that track must have + the same kind. + </dd> Example: var sender = pc.createRtpSender("audio"); // ... later ... sender.setTrack(track); Pros: - Simple Cons: - Adds a new method (two ways to do things) PR 272 (https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/272): + <dt>RTCRtpSender addTrack ( + MediaStreamTrack track, + optional RTCRtpSenderInit senderDict, + MediaStream... streams)</dt> + <dl class="idl" title="dictionary RTCRtpSenderInit"> + <dt>DOMString kind</dt> + <dd> + <p>The kind of the track that the <code>RtpSender</code> + will send. If <code>addTrack</code> is passed a null track, + this must be set to indicate the type of track that will be + set later. If <code>addTrack</code> is passed a non-null + track, this kind must either be unset or agree with the kind + of the given track.</p> + </dd> + + <dt>RTCRtpParameters parameters<dt> + <dd> + <p>The initial parameters to use for + the <code>RtpSender</code>. This is equivalent to + calling <code>RTCRtpSender.setParameters</code> on the + RTCRtpSender returned by <code>addTrack</code>. + </p> + </dd> + </dl> Example: var sender = pc.addTrack(null, {kind: "audio"}); // ... later ... sender.setTrack(track); Pros: - RtpSenderInit is useful for other things (Could be used for VAD or MSID replacement) Cons: - A little more complex So, which do we like? I'd be happy with either.
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2015 06:35:20 UTC