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

Re: API design

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:00:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxs6sUjbB-6y80DXwshB33uEZmWUQMVkGe8V_XswRHVKaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 6/28/13 18:28, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
>> Looking at the amount of code reuse I am not sure we can count Chrome and
>> Firefox as two implementations. Maybe one and a half.
>>
>
> You're very confused on this point.
>
> The code we share in common is pretty much limited to the media processing
> (e.g. codecs), which isn't really the subject of the standardization that
> is currently underway.
>
> Firefox's implementation of the two major specs -- PeerConnection and
> getUserMedia -- is completely independent of Chrome's, as is our network
> transport (e.g., ICE and DTLS).
>
>
I am aware of the code differences and the fact that Mozilla is not using
libjingle. This statement was intended as a bit of a joke but it does point
at an important issue -- weather these two implementation can be considered
truly independent. My question is if PeerConnection was implemented in both
browsers based on spec or based on looking at each other's source code. I
think the original point was that provider API specification is only valid
if you have three independent implementations that work with each other.
Building two implementation by looking at each other's source code does not
count for me as two independent implementations.
_____________
Roman Shpount
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 00:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC