- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:51:48 +0000
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
From this discussion I see two issues that could be filed. #1 RTCPeerConnection.addTrack() should check if track is member of supplied streams #2 Don't create a default stream in 'dispatch a receiver' steps File? /Adam On 2015-10-23 19:44, Peter Thatcher wrote: > I think it should be optional. I see it as perfectly valid for the JS > to want to addTrack on one side and see ontrack on the other and not > care about MediaStreams in between. Requiring a MediaStream is just > extra burden for no benefit. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com > <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote: > > Trying to resolve Issue #288 [1]. > > As Jan-Ivar points out, the addTrack method does not mandate the > application to supply MediaStream(s). The question is if this is a > mistake or not, i.e. that it should not be allowed to send a track > without telling what MediaStream it should belong to at the remote > (receiving) end. > > I would argue that it should be OK to do so, mainly because I see no > reason for mandating it, but also because it would not let us get rid of > the default processing (creating a new MediaStream) at the receiving end > if a track with no stream info is added since (?) this would be the > situation in many cases when the sending device is not a browser, but > some other kind of (legacy-ish) device. > > Also, note that there is no check on whether or not the track is member > of the MediaStream(s) given to addTrack at the sending end - the API > allows for making the track member of a MediaStream on the remote end > even if it is locally not member of the corresponding MediaStream. > > As for the larger question: 'Can a live track be consumed outside of a > stream (assuming PeerConnection is a consumer)?' my take on that is > "yes" and PeerConnection is the example. The gUM defines out > _MediaStream_ consumers, but I don't see it prohibiting MediaStreamTrack > consumers to be defined. > > Views, comments? > > Stefan (not having strong views, just wanting this to be settled) > > > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/288 > [2] > http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/getusermedia.html#dfn-consumer > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 15:08:59 UTC