W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-orca@w3.org > August 2013

RE: Need to expose RTCSocket object

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:03:15 +0000
To: Gustavo García <ggb@tokbox.com>, "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
Message-ID: <88EA7D224AA4F24F9D7628368F7572A91A6709EA@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Because clone() is insufficient, complex and hard to reason about.  Clone() is currently underspecified, but if it is similar to the proposal made long back for JSEP, it's a partial clone of state, replicating only the local sockets and none of the additional state already accumulated (including remote candidates and any connection state).

I've argued in the past that clone() should be removed.

RTCSocket is invisible if you don't care for those complex use cases.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gustavo García [mailto:ggb@tokbox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August, 2013 2:14
> To: public-orca@w3.org
> Subject: Need to expose RTCSocket object
> Could somebody explain why do we need to expose RTCSocket in the public
> API "for serial and parallel media forking"?  Could we expose clone method
> but keep RTCSocket as an internal implementation detail?
> I'm probably missing something.  Thank you for the info, G.
Received on Friday, 30 August 2013 22:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:39:21 UTC