- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:29:34 -0400
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:30:32 UTC
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