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

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

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:37:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4FED3F33.70000@ericsson.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 06/28/2012 06:38 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> Objects that declare all their members in the constructors tend to
> optimize better. They also have a much clearer intent of what we are
> trying to represent here - logically speaking this is not a
> dictionary though clearly a dictionary could be used as one way to
> implement it. They also make it easier to add methods later - this
> might be slightly controversial but given a bunch of people want it,
> seems like we should at least keep that future door open for now.  If
> we were using any language other than JS which blurs the distinction
> between objects and dictionaries, we would not even be having this
> discussions and would have just declared a class or extensible
> structure for this.
>
> Is there any concrete argument for dictionary over object for the
> thing that holds the SDP?
>
> I normally don't care too much about the things like this that only
> change the syntax and not the semantics of what is possible. But one
> way or another, I'd like to wrap up this thread and move forward.

Me too. I think it has been argued that dictionaries are simpler, 
fulfills all we need for a first phase at least and are future proof 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Jun/0204.html) so 
perhaps that is what we should do. But most important is to decide and 
then move forward.

>
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:09 , Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/2012 08:15 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>>> Le mardi 26 juin 2012 à 20:20 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
>>>> Well, PeerConnection.localDescription and .remoteDescription
>>>> would have to be changed aswell since they are
>>>> SessionDescription attributes, and attributes cannot be
>>>> dictionaries in WebIDL.
>>>
>>> Good point, I had missed that; I guess they would have to be
>>> declared as "object" with their actual structure defined in the
>>> prose.
>>
>> So would not that be the same as what the
>> SessionDescriptionCallback is provided with, e.g. an object à la
>> {sdp:"m=lotsofmumbo", type:"offer"}?
>>
>>>
>>> Dom
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 05:38:22 UTC

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