Re: Proposed new text for noaccess

On 10/26/2013 10:44 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 26 October 2013 08:35, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> "If any tracks in a MediaStream added via AddStream() have a noaccess
>> constraint,
>> the implementation MUST throw an exception of XXX" (I am still a little
>> vague on
>> how we have decided to do exceptions.
> I'm not sure about this part.  If you think about the scenarios in
> which this is used, an application might want to initiate negotiation
> prior to receiving consent.  Chucking exceptions all over the place is
> going to be a bit of an impediment to that.  How about this - and the
> case where the peerIdentity constraint != the actual peer identity -
> result in silence/black being sent, with some other way to learn about
> this.  The stats API seems to be the catchall here, but I always hope
> for a better, cleaner answer than that.
>
I would actually prefer an error callback or an exception - the
programmer made an error, the application should do something exceptional.

If the programmer never checks the appropriate indicator, the first
discovery of the error may be a customer call to a helpdesk saying "my
camera can't send" or something like that.

The programmer can always choose to ignore an error.

(addStream already has one case where it throws an error - it throws
InvalidStateError when the PC is closed - so making it throw one more
isn't a revolution.)


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Saturday, 26 October 2013 22:25:43 UTC