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

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:

> Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 12:02 +0200, Stefan Hakansson LK a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> Indeed; just to clarify what I meant, my ideal API would be something
> where if I don't want to deal with ICE/SDP (e.g. because I don't even
> know these technologies exist), I don't have to manage it at all (e.g.
> would just need to plug a signallingChannel somewhere, and magics would
> happen), but if I want to, then I get all the JSEP power I need.
>

I still don't understand why think that developers who are unwilling to
understand these concepts or use a library that takes care of them will be
able to deploy a TURN server or handle the other necessary aspects of
running a reliable communications service.

We have spent countless time trying to come up with a perfect API. We are
now at the point where doing so is now holding back developers who want to
build real applications, who simply want a stable API that supports the
functionality they need. We need to polish any remaining rough edges on the
current API and ship it.

On this topic of the global namespace, other Web APIs (e.g. WebGL) dump far
more names into the global namespace. I don't think that 2 additional names
is worth spending a lot of time debating. Either prefix them, or leave them
as-is.