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

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

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:03:26 +0200
Message-ID: <1340093006.3163.12.camel@cumulustier>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 12:07 -0400, Justin Uberti a écrit :

> 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.

I think assuming that PeerConnection will only be used by developers
that want to run a reliable communication service is a mistake; as I
have said before, the availability of a P2P data channel is likely to be
as big if not much bigger in usage than video/audio chat.

Leaving the work to libraries has issues of its own (e.g. we'll make Web
pages that much slower to load; clearly having every API out there rely
on library doesn't scale), and seems to be a sign of giving higher
priority to our difficulties over the ones of the developers (see [1]
Priority of Constituencies).
> 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. 
The number of developers we are annoying now is very small compared to
the number of developers we will annoy in the future if we come up with
a poorly designed API, IMO.

> 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.

I don't think WebGL is an example of a particularly Web-designed API —
it has been designed for compatibility with OpenGL, something that we
don't have in our case.


Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 08:04:06 UTC

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