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