Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

     Sure. If you look at apprtc (the reference WebRTC application) you 
will notice they manipulate the SDP to improve Chrome-Firefox interop 
and give Opus a higher priority than other audio streams.

     That's basic stuff. I'm sure others have more use-cases.

Gili

On 18/06/2013 4:10 PM, Frédéric Luart wrote:
>
> Hi Gili,
>
> Do you already have some use cases where you need SDP manipulation ?
>
> Fred
>
> *From:*cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org]
> *Sent:* lundi 17 juin 2013 17:05
> *To:* public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?
>
> Hi Fred,
>
>     A good first step but I'm not looking for an API that wraps all of 
> WebRTC. I just want the SDP portion wrapped.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 17/06/2013 8:51 AM, Frédéric Luart wrote:
>
>     Hello Ken,
>
>     We started to develop a WebRTC JavaScript library which is
>     available at www.apirtc.com <http://www.apirtc.com>
>
>     We are experts on VoIP and one of our objectives in the
>     development of this library is to bring our expertise to Web
>     developers and solve specific VoIP issues
>
>     We plan to add this “SDP manipulation” feature on our API so let
>     us know if we can help on this subject
>
>     Fred
>
>     *From:*Ken Smith [mailto:smithkl42@gmail.com]
>     *Sent:* samedi 15 juin 2013 07:14
>     *To:* cowwoc
>     *Cc:* Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku); public-webrtc@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?
>
>     I would believe that SDP is a mere "implementation detail" if it
>     weren't for the fact that over on the webrtc-discuss mailing list,
>     maybe half the discussions involve how to tweak the SDP to get it
>     to interoperate with some gateway or other.
>
>     It's quite plausible to me that because of backwards compatibility
>     issues, dealing with SDP directly is going to remain a critical
>     feature of getting WebRTC to work with legacy systems. But among
>     other things, that also leads me to believe that the industry has
>     suffered a collective failure of imagination. SDP is a horrible
>     API, and somebody, somewhere need to figure out a better way of
>     getting these systems to interoperate without arbitrary edits to
>     of opaque text files.
>
>     That's probably beyond the scope of WebRTC, but I'd appreciate it
>     if everyone involved in designing these API's took this as an
>     important data point. Folks like myself who want to use WebRTC but
>     who aren't experts in VOIP quite justifiably hate everything about
>     SDP and everything it stands for. It's a significant problem in
>     desperate need of a real solution.
>
>     Ken
>
>     On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:58 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>     <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>
>         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.
>
>     Gili
>
>
>
>     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 [cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>     <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>]
>     Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:10 PM
>     To: public-webrtc@w3.org <mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
>     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, piranna@gmail.com
>     <mailto:piranna@gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Ken Smith
>     Cell: 425-443-2359
>     Email: smithkl42@gmail.com <mailto:smithkl42@gmail.com>
>
>     Blog: http://blog.wouldbetheologian.com/
>