- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:51:27 +0200
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
+ 1 Sent from my iPad On 30 aug 2012, at 19:45, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson > <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems that a recurring theme in discussions is the cost to developers. >> > <snip of clarification that this is not about the poll question> > >> -- >> >> What has not been properly recognized in the debate is the presence of >> a trade-off. > > Possibly this is because everyone in the discussion is experienced > enough that this is a given? That engineering involves trade-offs is > pretty old news, after all. > >> Building applications that have parts outside of your >> control sucks. Sure, it's a natural consequence of trying to do >> anything more than the most trivial application. That doesn't >> diminish its suckitude when it comes to writing and maintaining >> software. For me, that's always been the attraction with open source >> software: when it breaks, *I* can fix it. >> >> The problem with a black box is that there is nothing I can do to fix >> it. All my experience with browsers suggests that it takes a long >> time before you can be certain that the bug has gone away for good. >> Bugs introduced in 2001 are only now on a small enough portion of the >> web that they can be effectively ignored (if you are feeling >> aggressive). >> >> CU-RTC-Web attempts to address that trade-off rationally. Yes, there >> is more work to get set up. The advantage is in how applications are >> empowered to deal with problems. Find a problem and there's a good >> chance that you can fix it. >> > > Well, there may be a good chance that *you* can fix it. But what > you're trading off is power for the power user versus ease of use for > the larger development community. Perhaps even more problematic is > that it is only a specific species of power user that's going to be > able to take advantage of that ability--those with a deep knowledge of > the network internals that go into making WEBRTC work. A power user > of javascript whose main focus is building a dating site, a casual > game, or a virtual car lot will probably not want to take advantage of > the power you wish to hand them; they will want the standard API to > work with a minimal amount of effort. > > For someone building an application for which WEBRTC is not the main > focus, the ability to re-write a library to fix a problem is neither > going to be particularly practical nor necessarily their desire. So > your trade-off may be rational for you, but I personally don't believe > that it is rational for the development community that's built the > games/user experiences that have already been demonstrated with the > current approach. In other words, I agree with you that we're making > a trade-off. But I personal believe that the current approach makes > that trade-off in a better way for a larger community than CU-RTC-Web. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie >
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:51:51 UTC