Re: [ACTION-43] (sdp related objects and global namespace) - way forward from Harald Alvestrand on 2012-06-15 (public-webrtc@w3.org from June 2012)

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:51:28 +0200
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4FDB05A0.2080308@alvestrand.no>

On 06/15/2012 11:45 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:
>
> That's just a question of definition. The one responsibility could be 
> to represent a message that needs to be sent to the other peer. Should 
> you have to care if it's a candidate or an offer even if the only 
> thing you want to do is to feed it to the PeerConnection object?
Can we stop rediscussing whether we are doing JSEP/SetLocalDescription 
or ROAP/ProcessSignallingMessage now? PLEASE?

If we reiterate on this question as if we did not pick a direction in 
Taiwan, reconfirmed it in Paris and re-reconfirmed it in Stockholm, 
we'll never get anywhere.

                      Harald

Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 09:51:59 UTC