- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:32:40 -0800
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I recommend instead { candidate: theCandidate, target: theTarget}.
On 11 February 2014 12:31, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to give my incoming/outgoing ICE candidates event handler a
> consistent interface. In the case of locally-generated (outgoing) ICE
> candidates I get a RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent from the browser. I was hoping
> to generate the same for incoming ICE candidates.
>
> I can always strip out the event and just pass the underlying candidate but
> it's not clear whether RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent will contain additional
> values in the future.
>
> Gili
>
>
> On 11/02/2014 3:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>
>> I've a better question: why would anyone want to do that in their
>> application? Why do we define this as having a constructor, rather
>> than just defining it as [NoInterfaceObject].
>>
>> On 11 February 2014 12:23, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#rtcpeerconnectioniceevent states that
>>> RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent's constructor takes two arguments, but fails to
>>> define the first one ("type").
>>>
>>> What is the meaning of "type" and what are legal values?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gili
>>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 21:33:07 UTC