Re: Moving forward with SDP control

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  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 :)
>

It could be done either way:  put both in the API or build one API on top
of the other in JS.   We could discuss which way is better, but we've been
asked to wait until the current API is done before we discuss the
particulars of 2.0.  But in general, I think we're in agreement, yes.


>
> Gili
>