Re: Proposal for API for Data

On 4/9/2012 5:31 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 02:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>> I had a proposal for the Data API for awhile and have circulated it privately to some folks but I had not sent it to the list because I wanted to keep the focus on the PeerConnection / JSEP stuff for awhile. However, I think I probably need to send this out. I think at the high level there is general agreement we need to be abel to send and receive data much like web sockets does, we need to be abel to create and destroy channels, and we need to be able to mark a channel as reliable or non reliable delivery. The API I'm proposing to do this is very simple.
>>> Interface DataMediaStreamTrack : MediaStreamTrack
>>> {
>>>       attribute boolean reliable;
>>> }
>>> DataMediaStreamTrack implements WebSocket;
>>> This ends up getting the function to send and receive data as well as report errors fromWebSocket. Any library that takes a WebSocket can take a DataMediaStream. It unifies creation of a new stream to be the same as MediaStreams. So in the same way that a new Video track was created, you can add a data track or remove one. It is labeled in same way as the the other tracks and so on. It seems like i works well for data sources that are from the JS app and it also can be used with data sources, such as a sensor or game controller, that may be more controlled by the browser in the same way a microphone or camera is more controlled form the browser. That will allow for better real time performance of devices that produce a data stream instead of an media stream.
>>> I'd like to discuss on one of the call the pros / cons of such an interface but right now I am heads down on the JSEP changes.
>> At one point I argued something similar....
>> the biggest worry I have with this approach is that it inherits a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to make sense, for instance:
> I think my answer to all of this this is more or less "same thing as media". Something in media stream that does not work for data probably will not work for DTMF.
> My primary issues here is that I'd rather not have things be greatly different if they don't need to be. If there is something in the MediaStreams that does not work for Data, then I am worried that it will have problem for other media types that get done in the future that are not Audio or Video.
> I do think that given the primary goal of the Data interface is to reduce latency, that we need to have a model that works when the Data is generated directly by a device and not from the JS app. Of course we all need to support the JS app generation.

I should note that this proposal is the first time I've heard mentioned 
the wish to hook up hardware (or non-JS sources) directly instead of via 
JS.  And of course this begs the question of data formats and where the 
source is (getUserNonMedia()? ;-)  I'm not saying it's bad to want to do 
this, but what are the use-cases, and in what way is the data 
standardized or otherwise definable?  (The app could transfer a data 
description in conjunction with the actual data, for example.)

>> - "mute" functions from the MediaStreamTrack: What does it mean to "mute" a data channel?
> same thing as with media - it largely an indicate that the received data will be ignored

And the usecase for this is...?

Extending/sub-setting WebSockets has some advantages, though there isn't 
a 1-1 matchup.  We have designed the current API to be largely similar 
to WebSockets to ease use and learning curve.  Doing the "implements" 
bit would add a fair bit of API, some of which might confuse the issue 
because of the slightly iffy matchup.  I'll try to look more closely at 

Randell Jesup

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 02:53:07 UTC