W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Set PeerConnection streams API as an extension

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:48:50 +0200
Message-ID: <516BF732.4010702@ericsson.com>
To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
CC: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2013-04-14 22:14, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> Reading the specification, I have seen that the audio & video stream
> has a "privileged" status being  defined their API directly on the
> PeerConnection one, while DataChannel, DMTF, statistics and identity
> APIs are specified as a "PeerConnection extension". I propose for
> homogeneity to set the PeerConnection specification to their basic
> functionality removing and setting in an independent section the next
> methods and their related issues:
>
>      sequence<MediaStream> getLocalStreams ();
>      sequence<MediaStream> getRemoteStreams ();
>      MediaStream?          getStreamById (DOMString streamId);
>      void                  addStream (MediaStream stream, optional
> MediaConstraints constraints);
>      void                  removeStream (MediaStream stream);
>
>                  attribute EventHandler          onaddstream;
>                  attribute EventHandler          onremovestream;
>
> They could be included and defined in the section "9. Media Stream API
> Extensions for Network Use".

This split is just a specification thing. All the features are mandatory 
to implement so there's no difference when you code with the APIs.

If we were to split out the media stuff from PeerConnection as well, I 
think it would be more suitable to put them in a separate "Peer-to-peer 
Media API" (or something) section.

/Adam
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 12:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC