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

Re: [ACTION-43] (sdp related objects and global namespace) - way forward

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4FDB083D.1060505@ericsson.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/15/2012 11:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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?

I don't think that is the discussion ongoing. No-one is at all trying to 
remove anything you can do with JSEP AFAIK. What is discussed seems 
rather to be what you put in the meaning of an object, how we can avoid 
polluting namespace, how we hit the right balance between easy to use 
for the simple case and reasonably simple to use for the advanced case.

Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 10:03:10 UTC

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