Re: Moving forward with SDP control

On 19/07/2013 6:10 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>     It matters because you're mixing two different API levels.
>
>
>         The high-level API doesn't specify the SDP contents. This is
>     what Web Developers use.
>         The low-level API specifies SDP or whatever signaling format
>     we end up using.
>
>         Most Web Developers will never need to see/use the low-level
>     API and we spare them a lot of grief. Anyone who needs access to
>     these internals can still do so, using the low-level API.
>
>         As a side-note, this has the added benefit of allowing you to
>     layer different high-level APIs on top of the low-level API. If
>     the low-level API is written in C, then you can have a JS
>     high-level API for browsers and a Java high-level API for Android,
>     an Objective-C high-level API for iOS, and so on.
>
>         If you stuff these two layers into a single API you will have
>     to re-implement it the low-level when all you really want to do is
>     publish a new high-level one.
>
>
> I'm completely in favor of a good lower-level API with the possibility 
> of different higher-level APIs built on top in JS.  And perhaps it 
> even makes sense to have a higher-level baked into the browser as 
> well.  I'm hoping that 2.0 goes in the direction of "good low-level 
> API that higher-level APIs can build on", and we can go from there.
>

     The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether the high-level API 
should be part of the WebRTC specification. I believe that the WebRTC 
specification must cover *both* low-level and high-level APIs otherwise 
you end up alienating either Integrators or Web Developers. We're trying 
to build WebRTC, not TelecomRTC :)

Gili