- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:52:34 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
[Chair hat on]
Based on discussion so far, this seems reasonable.
If anyone objects, please say so Real Soon (like in the next 48 hours).
Harald
On 08/04/2012 02:22 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18486
>
> Summary: Let RTCSessionDescription take a Dictionary parameter
> Product: WebRTC Working Group
> Version: unspecified
> Platform: PC
> OS/Version: Linux
> Status: NEW
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P2
> Component: WebRTC API
> AssignedTo: public-webrtc@w3.org
> ReportedBy: harald@alvestrand.no
> CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
>
>
> >From Tommy Widenflycht, July 31 (see mailing list for discussion):
>
> Today I would like to propose a small change to RTCSessionDescription and
> RTCIceCandidate which would make the much more flexible:
>
> [Constructor(optional Dictionary description)]
> interface RTCSessionDescription {
> attribute RTCSdpType type;
> attribute DOMString sdp;
> };
>
> In short the single constructor takes an Dictionary which is expected to mimic
> its members, and the stringifier method is removed.
>
>
> This has the advantages of being extremely powerful:
>
> sd = new RTCSessionDescription();
> sd.sdp = ...;
> sd.type = ...;
>
> sd = new RTCSessionDescription({sdp:"..."});
> sd.type = ...;
>
> sd = new RTCSessionDescription({type:"answer", sdp:"..."});
>
> sd = new RTCSessionDescription(JSON.parse(some_json_string));
>
> sd2 = new RTCSessionDescription(sd);
>
> and in the other direction
>
> jsonified_sd = JSON.stringify(sd);
>
>
> There's some precedence in using a constructor like this in some of the base
> Event classes.
>
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 15:52:58 UTC