- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:24:58 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Anant Narayanan wrote: > > There's no reason that the PeerConnection object has to map the > underlying ICE negotiation exactly, but even if it does, our > PeerConnection factory proposal (PeerListener) allows for a web > developer to express his intent to create multiple PeerConnection > objects. In other words, it makes it easier for the developer to > establish a 1:many stream without having to create each PeerConnection > individually. I'm not convinced it's much easier. Do you have any examples showing what a Web app would look like using your proposal to do 1:many so that I can compare it with what it would look like with the current spec? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 21:25:30 UTC