- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:18:37 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 09/04/2012 09:05 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Complexity can be addressed in a number of ways. It seems that some > folks (Ted and Cullen foremost on this thread) are convinced that it's > a straight choice between low and high level APIs. > > The idea that we could trade complexity in the browser for complexity > in the application without affecting either the availability of low > level APIs or usability maybe did not occur. Maybe it wasn't > convenient. Thankfully, we aren't optimizing a one-dimensional > system. > > For example, the API that I posted at the start of this thread - or > something like it - could be made part of the browser API. > > With that API available, it's quite likely that a demo built on the > two APIs would be comparable in complexity... for the class of > applications where complexity is a determining factor. I've also heard the claim (not sure if you were the one who made it, Martin) that the PeerConnection API could be implemented on top of the CU-RTC API, in which case the complexity of using them would of course be identical. If the PeerConnection API, implemented on top of CU-RTC, can then be part of the browser API .... that's an implementation strategy. Some might like it.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:19:02 UTC