W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:55:08 +1000
Message-ID: <51EDAA3C.1010707@mob-labs.com>
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi Peter,

I absolutely will do.

I'll be helping a lot of new WebRTC developers at the Sydney meetup that 
Silvia is organising on Monday. Here's the first set of code I've 
released that designed to help people get started quickly.


The book obviously works through all the code for a few examples like 
this in detail and addresses how all the components fit together.

I've rewritten adapter.js a little.  And I've tried to make the 
caller/callee O/A flow easier to understand than the examples included 
in the spec as a lot of people find them a little opaque on first read.

If anyone has any feedback I'd love to hear it.

NOTE: I've specifically skipped any SDP mangling as that definitely 
confuses first time developers. And the focus on the code is more about 
readability and understandability than any specific js coding style.


On 23/07/13 00:43, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> Rob,
> Thank you so much for giving us some feedback.  Given that you are
> writing a book about WebRTC, you will probably be in a unique position
> to be in contact with web developers using WebRTC, especially for the
> first time.  Through that experience, you might learn better than anyone
> how well the API works for them.  I encourage you, as you publish the
> book and are in contact with readers, to come back to the forum and give
> us feedback about how well it's working, what is good,  and what things
> are pain points for new-comers (and more advanced users as well,
> obviously).  At the very least, I would be interested to hear what
> they're trying to do with WebRTC (their use cases).
> Thanks,
> Peter
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com
> <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>> wrote:
>     +1
>     As a web developer that's spent a lot of time experimenting with the
>     currently specified version of the WebRTC related APIs and that's
>     been following the mailing list debates closely this really does
>     seem like the best resolution.
>     It provides a more extensible and flexible architecture that can
>     evolve at "web developer speed" not "aligned browser release speed".
>     And at this speed it will also be less fragile.
>     It provides a clear separation of concerns so people can use SDP
>     where they want, but not everyone is restricted by the timelines of
>     other WGs that are required to evolve SDP.
>     And it would enable even more experimentation and future facing
>     development too.
>     Also, in terms of timing I think getting this right is more
>     important than the current commitment to a deadline.
>     This is from the perspective of a web developer that has gone to all
>     the effort of just finishing a book on "Getting started with WebRTC"
>     using the existing API and who is also working on several commercial
>     projects based on the current API.
>     So if anyone should be promoting "just get the first version out"
>     then it should be someone in my position. But I think you really
>     will find that most web developers would rather we got this
>     abstraction right first so we can avoid all of the extra support
>     issues and application re-work that will be required down the track
>     if we don't.
>     roBman
>     On 20/07/13 23:51, IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>         Let W3C experts to define a good JS API for WebRTC (with no
>         SDP), let
>         MMUSIC WG to define a SDP format for WebRTC, and then let
>         JavaScript SIP
>         experts to build JS libraries on top of it to play the SDP game,
>         and we
>         all will be happy. And telcos will be much more happy than they
>         think.
>         Let's get rid of all the SDP O/A stuff in the browser. The
>         browser is
>         not a phone and "fixed logic + fixed code" does not work here.
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 21:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC