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

Re: DataConnection objects

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:56:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWstGHRKX_UwqeGzugAipwp_yXHEMdAdR7KQNbKL_md4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object

On 13 June 2012 02:51, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 4:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>
>> On 12 June 2012 23:19, Stefan Hakansson LK
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I still am not convinced about the need for this DataConnection object.
>>> Since there will be only one DataConnection per PeerConnection, there is
>>> a
>>> one-to-one mapping between them. What do the app developer (on anyone
>>> else)
>>> gain by us introducing the DataConnection object?
>>
>>
>> This is only good if you assume that every PeerConnection has a data
>> connection.
>
>
> I'm not convinced we need the DataConnection object.  Anything you can do to
> one could be a method on PeerConnection.
>
> It makes it a little clearer if you want to drop all DataChannels.
> It gives you a convenient API/handle for finding out and keying off the
> state of the DataConnection/SCTP association (if it matters).
> It might be useful in some other context than PeerConnection.
>
> --
> Randell Jesup
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:57:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC