W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: CHANGE: [Bug 18486] New: Let RTCSessionDescription take a Dictionary parameter

From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: <5037A30E.8010207@jesup.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 8/24/2012 10:43 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) wrote:
> It has been pointed out to me that the stringify algorithm is broken,
> especially for RTCSessionDescription since the sdp member most certainly
> contains newlines. Should had noticed that myself, doh.
>
> Also some clarification regarding exactly what the end result is need to
> be put in the specification.
> We had a discussion regarding if this was meant to be JSON or not.
>
> /Tommy
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ)
> <tommyw@google.com <mailto:tommyw@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm fine both with removing the stringifier and letting it create
>     "JS object strings" as long as everyone understands that it
>     isn't necessarily JSON compatible.
>
>     JSON.stringify(object) != (string)object

So, we have 3 options:
1) Use the current stringifier (with fixes for newlines, maybe quotes)
2) Move it to valid JSON (newlines, quotes, parens, ?)
3) drop the stringifier and use "JS object strings" (what's the impact 
of this?

We have to do one.  Pros/cons?

>
>     On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>     <fluffy@cisco.com <mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         This one is not a real big deal to me one way or ther other but
>         the string still seems nicer in the exmaple code I have. Is
>         there a real strong argument one way or the other?
>
>
>         On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand
>         <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>
>          > [Chair hat on]
>          > Based on discussion so far, this seems reasonable.
>          > If anyone objects, please say so Real Soon (like in the next
>         48 hours).
>          >
>          >            Harald
>          >
>          > On 08/04/2012 02:22 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
>         <mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:
>          >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18486
>          >>
>          >>            Summary: Let RTCSessionDescription take a
>         Dictionary parameter
>          >>            Product: WebRTC Working Group
>          >>            Version: unspecified
>          >>           Platform: PC
>          >>         OS/Version: Linux
>          >>             Status: NEW
>          >>           Severity: normal
>          >>           Priority: P2
>          >>          Component: WebRTC API
>          >>         AssignedTo: public-webrtc@w3.org
>         <mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
>          >>         ReportedBy: harald@alvestrand.no
>         <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>
>          >>                 CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
>         <mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> >From Tommy Widenflycht, July 31 (see mailing list for
>         discussion):
>          >>
>          >> Today I would like to propose a small change to
>         RTCSessionDescription and
>          >> RTCIceCandidate which would make the much more flexible:
>          >>
>          >> [Constructor(optional Dictionary description)]
>          >> interface RTCSessionDescription {
>          >>              attribute RTCSdpType type;
>          >>              attribute DOMString  sdp;
>          >> };
>          >>
>          >> In short the single constructor takes an Dictionary which is
>         expected to mimic
>          >> its members, and the stringifier method is removed.
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> This has the advantages of being extremely powerful:
>          >>
>          >> sd = new RTCSessionDescription();
>          >> sd.sdp = ...;
>          >> sd.type = ...;
>          >>
>          >> sd = new RTCSessionDescription({sdp:"..."});
>          >> sd.type = ...;
>          >>
>          >> sd = new RTCSessionDescription({type:"answer", sdp:"..."});
>          >>
>          >> sd = new RTCSessionDescription(JSON.parse(some_json_string));
>          >>
>          >> sd2 = new RTCSessionDescription(sd);
>          >>
>          >> and in the other direction
>          >>
>          >> jsonified_sd = JSON.stringify(sd);
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> There's some precedence in using a constructor like this in
>         some of the base
>          >> Event classes.
>          >>
>          >
>          >
>


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 15:52:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 August 2012 15:52:32 GMT