RE: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

We have to decide what kind of API we want.  I see some people asking for an object oriented layer that would keep them from having to edit SDP by hand.  Something like that might start with an SDP object that had properties int numMLines and an array mLines[mLine], where mLine was an object with properties port, package, etc.  

I think that an API like this would be useful.  (The argument against it has been that we shouldn't spend time on it because  someone will write an SDP library.)  However that API is quite specific to SDP, and I doubt that it would allow us to swap in another representation in a later release.   An API that completely hid the underlying representation would be much more challenging.  Maybe add transport-related properties to MediaStreams and Tracks, and then have a toOffer/toAnswer method on MediaStream, but that API/representation would be closely tied to webRTC.  

SDP may stink, but a lot of people  outside webRTC seem to hold their noses and use it...

- Jim
P.S.  I'd be willing to work on either version of an API, but first we'd have to decide that we are willing to cram it into release 1.  So far, it hasn't  made the cut.

-----Original Message-----
From: cowwoc [] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:58 PM
To: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)
Subject: Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

     An object wrapper would be nice but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

     My point is that if SDP really is an implementation detail then the specification must ensure that we can swap it out for something else in the future without breaking backwards compatibility. To me, that begins by specifying that the SDP argument is an opaque token. WebRTC 1.0 might use SDP while WebRTC 2.0 might use some other format.


On 14/06/2013 11:47 PM, Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) wrote:
> My 2 cents ..
> I personally dont feel why would one want to modify SDP frequently than supporting few special cases. Also once the APIs, SDP Usages and constraints are finalized, i envision there will be much lesser need to modify SDP by hand.
> Needing to have a object wrapper is fine by not sure if it is a MUST requirement.
> Cheers
> Suhas
> ________________________________________
> From: cowwoc []
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:10 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?
>       +1. I understand that the spec authors are determined to stick 
> with SDP and that's okay, but can we get the specification to 
> explicitly state that SDP arguments are to be treated as read-only 
> opaque tokens at this time? This leaves the door open to providing an 
> object-oriented API for mutating SDP at some future time.
> Gili
> On 14/06/2013 3:14 PM, wrote:
>> Isn't there somewhere a wrapper for SDPs? It's crazy trying to work 
>> with them, and nothing have been decided yet about using a more 
>> object-oriented API that modify the SPD strings by hand, while it has 
>> been agreed several times on this list about SDPs should be 
>> implementation detail... Also, such wrapper should be a basis where 
>> to start to develop that higher-level API...
>> --
>> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un 
>> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo 
>> Unix."
>> - Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 21:58:21 UTC