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

Anything works for me - thought the idea of prefixing things with Web in a browser seems oddly redundant but I'm perfectly happy with any decision on what the prefix is.

On Jun 18, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd be fine with prefixing everything with Rtc so it becomes
> 
> RtcPeerConnection
> 
> RtcSessionDescription
> 
> etc.
> 
> The key issues in my mind is that we get it so that it is very unlikely we will have a conflict in the shared namespace
> 
> Agree with this - there seems to be good precedent for using prefixes for this purpose.
> 
> Of the prefixes proposed, I prefer either WebRTCXXXX or RTCXXXX over PeerXXXX or PeerConnectionXXXX.
> 
> 
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Looking over some related specs, I see a pretty clear precedent to do interface prefixing with the API name, or an abbreviation thereof:
> > WebGL: WebGLBuffer, WebGLProgram, WebGLShader, etc
> > IndexedDB: IDBDatabase, IDBRequest, IDBObjectStore, etc
> > WebAudio: AudioNode, AudioParam, AudioBuffer, etc
> >
> > As far as possible prefixes go, I prefer WebRTCFoo to PeerConnectionFoo.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 20:44:36 UTC