- From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:01:50 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: "<public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
This one is not a real big deal to me one way or ther other but the string still seems nicer in the exmaple code I have. Is there a real strong argument one way or the other?
On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> [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, 13 August 2012 15:02:29 UTC