Re: Issue 619: setDirection()

​Although I left some comments for improvements in the PR, I think that
generally speaking this is the right approach to take.

Do we need to update JSEP as well?

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Peter Thatcher said:
>
>
>
> "I thought about this some more, and I think that if we have {direction:
> "sendrecv"} in the construction of an RtpTransceiver, we probably ought to
> have .setDirection instead of .activateSender. That would be easier to
> specify and would allow the application to change direction in any way
> (sender/receiver active/inactive).”
>
>
>
> [BA] I agree that setDirection() would be more consistent (and succinct)
> than activateSender() and activateReceiver(), so I’ve submitted an Issue
> relating to this:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/619
>
>
>
> Also, here is a PR to add setDirection() (and remove activateSender() and
> activateReceiver():
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/620
>
>
>