- From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:19:16 +0000
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 20 Feb 2014, at 18:36, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> Promises will help here, but good APIs are not in contraposition of
> languages failures. Merge this calls maybe it's a little bit of sugar
> syntaxis, but it's not a bad thing at all... But definitelly, I don't
> agree with the sentence about "WebRTC is designed to build wrapping
> libraries". Low level is ok, but should be easy to use "as is", if you
> are forced to use a library you are learning to use that library, not
> the APIs that offer the browser.
Like xmlHttpRequest and DOM - which no one actually uses directly,
everyone uses jquery or angular or polymer or whatever.
Like I said, the moment we decided not to do an API that
embedded a single signalling protocol ( eg SIP or xmpp or iax)
we at that moment decided it wouldn't be a 'highlevel' api
in the
navigator.dial("e164@weshawk.co.uk",{video:true});
mould.
Let me emphasise we made the correct decision, but you can't have a
simple highlevel API without baked in signalling (IMHO). But that doesn't
matter, because there are libraries, some of them quite good already.
T.
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 20:19:52 UTC