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

Re: Spec question: Declaration of IceCandidate

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:29:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-24-qz2L8CUXhEAcCgEg=a6qQKS0rtncS_JH+AwkBnUNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:

> Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 14:21 -0400, Justin Uberti a écrit :
>
> > Therefore, I suggest the following declaration of IceCandidate. I
> > think it is useful for this to be an object as opposed to a
> > dictionary, since in the future we could add accessors to get at all
> > the various candidate fields (component, foundation, etc).
>
> If this is something we may need in the future (but don't have clear use
> cases for now), can't we just go with a dictionary now, and make it an
> object if and when we need it?
>
> Using a dedicated interface will require developers to use a constructor
> when a simple JavaScript object would do, without any concrete benefit.
>
>
The actual methods on IceCandidate will be necessary when we decide to
allow the ICE Agent to be implemented in JS.

Even before then, I think there is value in having IceCandidate and
SessionDescription have similar usages (i.e. both have ctor).
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:30:32 UTC

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