- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:20:28 -0800
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:34 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > Iñaki, > > That's not what I'm talking about or asking for. > > I'm not talking about "one library to rule all" but rather a reference > implementation by one of the vendors (I used Google as an example because > their implementation is already up on webrtc.org). That (or the library from Firefox were we to extract it) wouldn't be a "reference implementation" but merely an "implementation" > Nothing would prevent > others from coming up with alternate libraries, or forking Google's. > > I'm just saying that we should have *at least one* Native API that mirrors > the Javascript API. That is out of scope for this effort. -Ekr > Gili > > > On 17/01/2014 11:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > The mission of W3C is to define a JS API, and the mission of the IETF is to > create a set of specifications. Code and libraries don't belong to them. > > And honestly, I don't like the idea of "one library to rule all". APIs in > smart phones are vendor specific stuff so you are not talking about a > "native API" but about "code" for proprietary operating systems. Not here > please. > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <ibc@aliax.net> > > On Jan 17, 2014 5:32 PM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: >> >> So guys: is there a strong interest in a more complete Native API that >> would parallel the Javascript API? If so, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Gili >> >> On 17/01/2014 4:42 AM, Alexey Aylarov wrote: >>> >>> I guess Mozilla has their own native library/code base , so there are at >>> least two. >>> Alexey >>> >>> 17/01/14 13:29 пользователь "Tim Panton new" <thp@westhawk.co.uk> >>> написал: >>> >>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 06:53, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 17/01/2014 1:44 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/17/2014 05:55 AM, cowwoc wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Justin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This isn't strictly tied to the spec, but I think it makes a lot of >>>>>>> sense to release a Native API at the same time as v1 that implements >>>>>>> the same functionality as the Javascript API. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's out of scope for the standardization activity, however. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>>> Exactly who do you think would be interested in releasing such a >>>>>> thing? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure. >>>>> >>>>> A related question is if someone comes along and does this legwork >>>>> (moving code from Chrome to the Native API), would Google consider >>>>> folding these changes into official Chrome releases... The benefit >>>>> being >>>>> that this would simplify future WebRTC integration work for any future >>>>> browsers who want to jump on board (but are not necessarily based on >>>>> Blink). >>>>> >>>>> So in theory, this benefits both the browsers and authors of native >>>>> applications. >>>>> >>>>> Gili >>>> >>>> I fully agree that a good native library would be great, however.... >>>> >>> >From the standardization perspective this could be a bad thing. We are >>>> >>>> risking a mono culture here, where every WebRTC implementation comes >>>> from >>>> the same code base. I'm not keen on that. In the old days you needed 2 >>>> independent implementation before you could claim a standard was >>>> workable. >>>> >>>> Tim. >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2014 23:21:38 UTC