- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:18:22 +0200
- To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Cc: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Le jeudi 14 juin 2012 à 17:08 +0200, Adam Bergkvist a écrit : > Perhaps we could settle with just one object. It would have a type > attribute that could be "candidate" as well as the current > SessionDescription types. Are you suggesting to use "candidate" to replace the IceCandidate interface? I'm not sure why we need that interface at all. It seems to only encapsulate a string — why not pass just the string? > I believe a requirement on the factory method > is to be able to take a string received from the network. Otherwise it > wouldn't be a direct replacement for the constructor (if that's what we > need). The only reason why I thought we wanted a constructor (or an interface more generaaly) for SessionDescription was that we thought we would want to add methods on top of that object to enable manipulations; the discussions at the F2F didn't seem to indicate this was that useful (or at least not useful enough to deserve a JavaScript native object, vs a ad-hoc library maybe?). But given your point above, I'm not sure anymore — was there any other point about having an object for SessionDescription? Dom
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 15:18:53 UTC