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

Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:26:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh1gRw1SSr3UA5jC7wWnR=2+2+20GWNwCNSLGAvh2ai0Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Ken Smith <smithkl42@gmail.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
I know what you said, but was just that "modularity" why it was so much
opposed, why I believe the (alternative) SDP mechanism is not tied to how
modular other parts are...
El 17/06/2013 01:20, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
escribió:

> The problem is that there is a single monolithic PeerConnection object
> that encapsulates several different concepts. I hear that am alternative
> proposal, with distinct objects and direct manipulation not tied to SDP was
> proposed, and y'all soundly rejected it... So I don't have much sympathy
> now.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> (Sent from my iPhone)
>
> On Jun 16, 2013, at 3:08 PM, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
>
> > 2013/6/16 piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>:
> >> somewhere need to figure out a better way of getting these systems to
> >> interoperate without arbitrary edits to of opaque text files.
> >> JSON to the rescue! :-D
> >
> >
> > JSON is not the solution-for-all. The problem of SDP is not the
> > format, but its monolithic exchange (if I modify something in my local
> > streams I have to send you again an entire SDP, including ICE
> > information). The same would happen in a JSON version of the SDP.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --
> > Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > <ibc@aliax.net>
> >
>
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 23:52:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC