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

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

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:42:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2ZQgt9B8wAxHN0UaWP4d0cbPt5FefTg9OgJrFY5vXQew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:

> 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.

I agree regarding the potential for the data channel, but said channel
requires the same infrastructure (i.e. TURN) as voice/video.

> 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.

> Dom
> 1.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:43:13 UTC

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