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

Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream?

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:49:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfncU+mjiHc7ZiMC6-yWTJw3Kj50N9E0pRpmVNgtvtVKTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/24 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
>>
>> 2013/7/24 Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>:
>> > I think we should use a callback on addStream
>>
>> Which information would such a callback provide? Would it be called
>> with an "error" argument if the remote rejects ALL THE TRACKS of the
>> stream with "port 0" in their "m" line?
>
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the context in which an error would
> be fired. It's not going to be in response to the other side rejecting
> the offer but in response to the PC not being able to construct a new
> offer which would reflect the stream. Recall that the effect of invoking
> addStream() is to call .onrenegotiationneeded() not to actually
> exchange any signaling messages.
>
> To give an example, consider what happens if you add a closed
> stream. This isn't ever going to work, so there needs to be an
> error reported here, even though we have no idea of the
> other side's capabilities.


Thanks for the clarification.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 09:50:02 UTC

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