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

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

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:51:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4FDF1644.10504@alvestrand.no>
To: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>
CC: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 06/16/2012 06:57 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 03:06 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:
>> Ways forward:
> ...
>> 2. Add, e.g., SessionDescription to the PeerConnection namespace.
>> * PeerConnection.SessionDescription
>> - Does any other web API do this?
>> Downside with the two above is a very long name and, unlike e.g.
>> PeerConnectionErrorCallback, the name will be used by developers to
>> construct objects.
> My vote is for (2) as stated above. I'm not too worried about it being 
> too long. If developers find themselves constructing this object 
> often, they can set it at the top of the file:
> const SD = PeerConnection.SessionDescription;
> const IC = PeerConnection.ICECandidate;
> ...
> var foo = new SD();
> var bar = new IC();
> Regards,
> -Anant
2 questions:

1) Anant, can you write out how this should be specified in WebIDL? It's 
not obvious to me that it's even possible to write an interface inside 
another interface.

2) Everyone else - do you have a strong opinion on this one way or the 
other? I'm in two minds myself on the namespace issue (it doesn't help 
if we're purists if everyone else goes the other way); if it's just 
Anant and half of me who think this is an issue, then we should go with 
stability rather than change.

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 11:52:08 UTC

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