> - Passing a data channel by reference between components inside a browser. At the moment, we haven't talked about WebWorkers and WebRTC at all; there are certainly things we can do if we can use WebWorkers on PeerConnections and data channels - or even pass data channels between tabs. > I commented about using PeerConnection (and specially DataChannels) inside WebWorkers some months ago but it was told it should be better to wait a little bit until implementations and APIs get more stable, so I was waiting until there were DataChannels Chrome-Firefox interoperation to re-open the debate. Anyway, this is a diferent discussion... :-) > - Plugging a data channel into some JS interface that expects some other kind of resource. This would probably require some kind of wrapping URL scheme (HTTP isn't one, which was what I was initially confused about), I was talking about pipe the http:// or ftp:// scheme on the address bar through the DataChannel in a protocol agnostic way to reuse browser parsers instead of needing to use Javascript implementations of them, not about the HTTP protocol itself. Maybe that was the source of confusion... > and some careful consideration of semantics (data channels send messages, not bytes, for instance), but could be useful. > I know, that's the reason I said a "bit diferent" use case :-D And in fact, being message-oriented instead of the byte-oriented would make more sense... > Both of these are reasonable things to do within browsers; if I understand you correctly, there isn't really an use case for passing the URI of a data channel between browsers, since it refers to a local object that can't be passed over the Internet. > Of course, it doesn't make sense since, as you said, they are internal objects. > Do I understand it more correctly now? > Totally and its fullness :-)
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 07:55:38 UTC