- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:06:31 +0000
- To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- CC: Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Most people seems to favor "state", so lets use that and proceed with the PR. This matches what's in the PR right now, but I do believe we need to update the corresponding event types to match that. /Adam On 2015-08-26 02:51, Justin Uberti wrote: > Unless we have multiple states on the same object that make .state > ambiguous (which I don't think is the case here), I think .state >> > everything else. > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com > <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote: > > transport.transportState is needlessly verbose. > transport.readyState and transport.connectionState at least match > something somewhere else. transport.transportState might as well > just be transport.state, since .transportState doesn't exist > anywhere else. > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net > <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote: > > 2015-08-25 10:37 GMT+02:00 Adam Bergkvist > <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com <mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>>: > > IceTransport.connectionState (type: RTCIceConnectionState) > > Shouldn't it be RTCIceTransportState? > > > > RTCDtlsTransport.transportState (type: RTCDtlsTransportState) > > Otherwise this should be: > > RTCDtlsTransport.connectionState (type: RTCDtlsConnectionState) > > > -- > Iņaki Baz Castillo > <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 08:06:59 UTC