W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:51:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMArMNJi_BQDvh3sUFMzVV53cYVrFZtRwGGKaSKXjTdgWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK  wrote:

> In order to make this call, we’re calling for the WG participants to make
> their opinion known, by indicating one of three alternative opinions:
> 1) The group should continue with a design based on the PeerConnection
> object, using SDP as part of the API.
> 2) The group should remove the PeerConnection and all use of SDP from the
> API, and pursue a design based on the CU-WebRTC proposal.
> 3) This participant does not have enough information to state an opinion at
> this time.

I strongly support continuing to build on the PeerConnection object approach.

I think the games and other applications which have been demonstrated
so far are a strong indication that even Hackathon-style events can
produce fun user experiences with this approach.   From the beginning,
I've been concerned that exposing only an API that was low level would
discourage Javascript application writers from exploring the space.
While the "twenty lines to build chat roulette" mantra might have been
too restrictive, I think that level of thinking should be in our minds
even if we are relying on common libraries.

I'm also concerned with another reset at this point.  The ROAP to JSEP
switch worried me from a timing perspective; this would be at least
the equivalent loss of time and maybe much more.

I do not see benefits that correspond to the costs of a reset at this
point, speaking personally, I think the group should move forward on
the current course.


Ted Hardie
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 23:51:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:32 UTC