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

Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:55:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh0ZrdBrivdXd6DgbkgWCLdmPr3JDw5URtcuRnsX6CYUbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> - 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC