RE: Issue #92: readonly attributes

Agree with Peter.  If the scenario and behavior for setTransport are not clearly defined, we should leave it out and revisit in the next version if we do need it.

Re the question from Bernard on the RTCIceListener, I don’t see a clear need to create an empty listener object, so the RTCIceOptions on the constructor should not be optional, and we can avoid a setter method and dynamic change to the RTCIceOptions as well.

From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:07 AM
To: Peter Thatcher
Cc: public-ortc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue #92: readonly attributes

Some more instances of attributes that should be readonly:


1.      SCTP Transport:

partial interface RTCSctpTransport : RTCDataTransport {
attribute RTCDtlsTransport transport;
}


2.      ICE Listener:

[Constructor(optional RTCIceOptions options)]
interface RTCIceListener {
                attribute RTCIceOptions? options;
};


Also, for the constructor, should RTCIceOptions be optional (so that we might need a setter) or can we always expect it?

From: Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: public-ortc@w3.org<mailto:public-ortc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Issue #92: readonly attributes

I agree.  Even if we have a setTransport, the attribute should be readonly.  And for the time being, I thought we agreed to leave out setTransport.

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com<mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>> wrote:

In the Editor's draft, we have:

partial interface RTCDtlsTransport {
attribute RTCIceTransport transport;
};

partial interface RTCRtpSender {
attribute RTCDTlsTransport transport;
};

partial interface RTCRtpReceiver {
attribute RTCDTlsTransport transport;
};

Should these attributes be readonly? That is what was proposed today in W3C WEBRTC.

If the desire is to change the transports, shouldn't we have a setter to accomplish this?