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

Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:18:39 +0200
Message-ID: <51C3012F.2030006@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/19/2013 05:05 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM, piranna@gmail.com 
> <mailto:piranna@gmail.com> <piranna@gmail.com 
> <mailto:piranna@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     So, for your answer, I should understand it would be done/masked
>     using high-level libraries, but on the bottom frames of the stack
>     (hidden by WebRTC API or not, like it's at this moment) an
>     offer/answer exchange will be always required, isn't it?
>
>
> No this is wrong. Offer/Answer is something that should be implemented 
> in JavaScript. What you need are much more basic operations, such as 
> "get the list of supported media types" , "get the list of codecs for 
> a media type", "select the transmit codec for a media stream", 
> "pause/resume media stream" etc. Currently offer/answer in webrtc is 
> build on top of API like this. Look at
> https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fwebrtc%2Fvoice_engine%2Finclude
> and
> https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fwebrtc%2Fvideo_engine%2Finclude
>
> These are the API that are used internally. Wrapping them in 
> JavaScript is something that would make sense to me.

You did notice that these interfaces have absolutely no idea what DTLS 
is or what ICE is, right?

There are just a *few* more libraries used to provide the whole set of 
functionalities.
And:

video_engine/include line count: 1695
voice_engine/include line count: 2121

You are not talking about small, simple, easily usable interfaces here.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 13:19:12 UTC

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