Rob Manson sent out a request to the WEBRTC WG's mailing list for review
of the implications of the Stream API to WEBRTC.
Arthur Barstow asked for comments to be sent to public-webapps@w3.org,
so I'm forwarding my response here.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Please review the updated Streams API
Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:10:27 +0000
Resent-From: public-web...@w3.org
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:09:54 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <har...@alvestrand.no>
To: Rob Manson <rob...@mob-labs.com>, public-web...@w3.org
Thank you for posting the link.
As written, this specification shows how to send an uninterpreted,
unsegmented stream of bytes over an API interface.
Since none of our interfaces (except possibly the output of the Recorder
interface) is specified in terms of uninterpreted, unsegmented streams
of bytes, I don't think this is particularly useful to the APIs
specified by this working group.
Thank you very much for explicitly naming the types you're specifying
'ByteStream' so that it is trivial to see that this is the abstraction
that this specification is relevant to.
On 12/05/2013 11:06 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
Hi,
if you didn't see my earlier post to public-media-capture, there's an
updated W3C Streams API draft available for review and I've been asked
to also notify this WG to get your feedback on it's implications for
MediaStream, MediaStreamTrack, RTCPeerConnection and RTCDataChannels.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
I'd encourage you all to review it and provide any feedback or
thoughts you might have.
As I mentioned in my post to public-media-capture, Feras and Takeshi
have been doing a great job integrating and filtering all the feedback
they've received and I've personally been pushing for as much focus on
making it as effective and useful for post-processing as possible. I'm
sure many of you here have a different perspective they would find
very valuable.
Below is the email Feras sent to describe where this work is up to.
roBman
On 12/4/13 11:27 AM, ext Feras Moussa wrote:
The editors of the Streams API have reached a milestone where we feel
many of the major issues that have been identified thus far are now
resolved and incorporated in the editors draft.
The editors draft [1] has been heavily updated and reviewed the past
few weeks to address all concerns raised, including:
1. Separation into two distinct types -ReadableByteStream and
WritableByteStream
2. Explicit support for back pressure management
3. Improvements to help with pipe( ) and flow-control management
4. Updated spec text and diagrams for further clarifications
There are still a set of bugs being tracked in bugzilla. We would like
others to please review the updated proposal, and provide any feedback
they may have (or file bugs).
Thanks.
-Feras
[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
