- From: <piranna@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 02:06:47 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, Yana Stamcheva <yana@jitsi.org>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Having a server available you can do anything, but the nice thing is
to do it without needing it :-D IT's not necesary to have a so magical
API, but something fairly similar would be possible. Also, maybe your
example wouldn't need to have dedicated servers, just a public
SIP-over-WebSockets endpoint that doesn't require authorization...
that would be awesome :-D Unluckily i didn't found any of them yet,
only anonimous XMPP servers and not too much... :-( But yes, something
so simple would be the perfect API for WebRTC, and using the federated
SIP network that way as a somewhat DNS system, probably it would be
also the way to fetch the so much called "Holy Grail of Internet"...
:-)
2013/7/6 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>:
> On 5 July 2013 15:42, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ideally to me (maybe utopic?) I would only need to set an
>> ID/token/IP:port/whatever on one end and a config object defining how
>> I want the connection, and don't need to worry anymore, just get an
>> event when my previous connection request have been done, or when a
>> new one is being received, no more. I don't know if the ones that
>> propose to remove Offer/Answer are talking about doing this way, but
>> it's my interpretation about how would be the solution.
>
> I believe that some people have APIs as simple as:
>
> PseudoPhoneDevice.call("sip:someguy@some.domain");
>
> If that sort of API is what you want, then that is entirely possible
> as long as you are willing to provide server resources to make it
> happen. I've seen several examples where this is the case.
>
> In isolation, at any single browser, that is not going to be feasible.
> It depends too heavily on the (non-standardized) capabilities of the
> server. Not to mention a reliance on TURN means that browser
> developers would have to put up TURN servers at significant expense.
> So the API you get from a browser will, necessarily, require a little
> more effort in order to build an application.
--
"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
Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 00:07:34 UTC