- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:56:57 -0700
- To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object On 13 June 2012 02:51, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote: > On 6/13/2012 4:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> >> On 12 June 2012 23:19, Stefan Hakansson LK >> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >>> >>> I still am not convinced about the need for this DataConnection object. >>> Since there will be only one DataConnection per PeerConnection, there is >>> a >>> one-to-one mapping between them. What do the app developer (on anyone >>> else) >>> gain by us introducing the DataConnection object? >> >> >> This is only good if you assume that every PeerConnection has a data >> connection. > > > I'm not convinced we need the DataConnection object. Anything you can do to > one could be a method on PeerConnection. > > It makes it a little clearer if you want to drop all DataChannels. > It gives you a convenient API/handle for finding out and keying off the > state of the DataConnection/SCTP association (if it matters). > It might be useful in some other context than PeerConnection. > > -- > Randell Jesup > randell-ietf@jesup.org >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:57:29 UTC