Re: [ortc] Undefined RTCRtpListener behavior (#48)

+1 for one-time use.

--sent from my mobile
On 14 Apr 2014 7:28 PM, "Robin Raymond" <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:

>
> [RR]
> Yes. Good summary.
>
> One fundamental design decision should be made... Are the RtcRtpReceiver
> objects one-time use and then disposable once used? In other words, when
> the RtcRtpReceiver locks/latches onto an RTP stream, the lock is final and
> there is no RTP stream that can become relatched to the same RtcRtpReceiver
> instance.
>
> I tried to outline the behaviour that would be required if the RtcRtpReceiver
> instance supported relatching to a new RTP stream. It has much more
> complex rules than if we made the object a one time use. The downside is
> that you'll need to create a new instance of an RtcRtpReceiver every time
> a switch to a new stream occurs since relatching isn't supported. The
> benefit is that the rules are much simpler, and it's it's not overly hard
> to prepare a new RtcRtpReceiver object that is ready to accept a changed
> RTP stream once it arrives so in my mind supporting relatching is not vital.
>
> I prefer to not support re-latching and make the RtcRtpReceiver instance
> a one-time-use for each incoming RTP stream.
> [/RR]
>
>   Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
>  April 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM
>
> [...]
>
> Also, kind of a side/clarifying question:
>
> If I understand correctly that filtering logic is necessary for two cases:
>
> 1. The app wants to create RTPReceivers before it starts getting media
> (for whatever reason) so these rules help make sure that when media
> actually starts arriving it would flow to the right receivers. Pre-defining
> such rules is not mandatory however and apps can very well create receivers
> on the fly as they get unhandled events.
>
> 2. RTPReceiver-s have already been created (either "pro" or "re" actively)
> and these rules try to guarantee that media would continue flowing to the
> right receiver with as little intervention from the application as
> possible.
>
> Are the above statements correct?
>
> Emil
>
>
>