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

Re: Event handlers in RTCPeerConnection

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:43:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU-7w1ZrPFa3SLSVm=OFa7qCK5aTeQNfXLj4616ObqVng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 1 October 2012 07:42, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>     interface MyInterface : EventTarget {
>>        attribute MyEventHandler? onsomething;
>>     };
>>     [TreatNonCallableAsNull]
>>     callback MyEventHandler = void (MyEvent e);
>>     interface MyEvent : Event {
>>        readonly attribute any myProperty;
>>     };
>
>
> But it will introduce a redundant specialized event handler type, since the
> additional parameters are a part of the event and not the callback argument
> list.

Yes, redundant in the sense that a generic EventHandler has the very
similar signature to MyEventHandler.  The difference is that instances
of EventHandler would be unable to implement this interface.  If you
care about that, then I suppose that EventHandler is sufficient.

> If you think that it's insufficient, please give an example on how you think
> it can be clarified.

Quoting the editors draft (which I assume is very recent):
  onicecandidate of type EventHandler
    This event handler, of event handler event type onicecandidate ,
must be supported by all objects implementing the RTCPeerConnection
interface. It is called any time there is a new ICE candidate added to
a previous offer or answer.

There is no link to the type of event, and the link to Section 15 is
hidden under the text "onicecandidate", which is exactly the link that
I followed.  Given that I followed a link labelled "onicecandidate", I
didn't expect this to go anywhere new.  Maybe something as simple as
removing the "on" would be sufficient.  I notice that other events
don't have "on".

I'm surprised that this event isn't described in Section 15.  It's
probably the only event that hasn't undergone significant changes.

Why is Section 15 non-normative?
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:44:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:30 UTC