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

Re: [discuss-webrtc] PeerConnection on WebWorker

From: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:34 +0400
Cc: discuss-webrtc@googlegroups.com, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CD87EAE1-1DDA-4369-9E42-E564FFE6D66A@zingaya.com>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
+1

if it can help somehow to keep WebRTC connection alive while reloading the page - there are a lot of use cases that require that

On Feb 24, 2013, at 10:45 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a concrete reason why not?
> It is not related to the actual DOM, after all. Data channels can be used without any relation to the DOM.
> 
> ☆PhistucK
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> Web Workers can't manipulate the DOM, including PeerConnection.
> 
> See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/Using_web_workers.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:49 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got this issue on Chrome v24 and v26, but I think it's related
> with the specificacion since I didn't see anything about it there.
> 
> I'm trying to create a PeerConnection (to later create a DataChannel
> from it) from inside a WebWorker, with the idea of use in the future a
> SharedWorker. My intention is to move all the logic of my application
> (a P2P filesharing application) to a SharedWorker and leave only on
> the window thread the UI related code, so it can be accessed from
> several browser tabs at a time, and also have the option to easily use
> a WebSocket to a remote server running the logic of the application
> instead against the local WebWorker/SharedWorker (the API is almost
> the same, only one using send() method and the other usind
> postMessage() method. I truly don't know why that difference between
> both, but this a different story...). The problem is that trying to
> create the PeerConnection inside the WebWorker it tell me that both
> webkitRTCPeerConnection and RTCPeerConnection are not defined, so I
> suppose this use case was not considered by the specification.
> 
> A temporal solution would be that the WebWorker send back the
> petitions to use the PeerConnection object to the window thread and
> process them there, but this would over complicate the application
> architecture and also decrease performance.
> 
> Any clue about this topic?
> 
> 
> --
> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
> Unix."
> – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
> 
> --
> 
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "discuss-webrtc" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to discuss-webrtc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "discuss-webrtc" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to discuss-webrtc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
> 
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 07:04:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:32 UTC