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

Re: API design

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 01:57:00 -0400
Message-ID: <51D11A2C.5090809@bbs.darktech.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 01/07/2013 12:47 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 6/28/2013 8:00 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com 
>> <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>     On 6/28/13 18:28, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>         Looking at the amount of code reuse I am not sure we can
>>         count Chrome and Firefox as two implementations. Maybe one
>>         and a half.
>>     You're very confused on this point.
>>     The code we share in common is pretty much limited to the media
>>     processing (e.g. codecs), which isn't really the subject of the
>>     standardization that is currently underway.
>>     Firefox's implementation of the two major specs -- PeerConnection
>>     and getUserMedia -- is completely independent of Chrome's, as is
>>     our network transport (e.g., ICE and DTLS).
>> I am aware of the code differences and the fact that Mozilla is not 
>> using libjingle. This statement was intended as a bit of a joke but 
>> it does point at an important issue -- weather these two 
>> implementation can be considered truly independent. My question is if 
>> PeerConnection was implemented in both browsers based on spec or 
>> based on looking at each other's source code. I think the original 
>> point was that provider API specification is only valid if you have 
>> three independent implementations that work with each other. Building 
>> two implementation by looking at each other's source code does not 
>> count for me as two independent implementations.
> We did not implement the JS (or network) APIs by looking at each 
> other's implementation, as can be witnessed by the number of 
> disagreements we've had to paper over until the spec is more stable 
> (and we agree on what it means).  See the polyfill layer in apprtc as 
> an example; if we were cribbing off each other to the degree you 
> imply, we'd never have something like that.
> We do test against each other (now that we can).  But we're very much 
> implementing to the spec (or what each of us believes the spec 
> is/will-be).

     That's good news. That means that we only need one more independent 

Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 05:57:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC