- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:12:19 -0800
- To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1inUQz6c2tZYwqH7LzxFoJ8HvsHJ7fihCWU_XKSFgyNA@mail.gmail.com>
Since I think this would be implemented as an extension of the RTCError that is defined in the PeerConnection spec, and via an onerror callback on PeerConnection, I think most of the details here would be PeerConnection-specific. Recording could of course use a similar style for its own error handler. On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote: > Some of the enum values will be specific to the individual APIs. For > recording will need "out of memory", which won't be needed/common in the > other APIs. Is there a way that gUM could define its core set, and then > webRTC could add transport-related items, etc.? Recording would inherit > and extend the gUM set, but not need the webRTC items. This seems like an > obvious place for a bit of inheritance. > Jim > > On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:18 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com<mailto: > juberti@google.com>> wrote: > > Yeah, I was thinking the same thing the other day, in the context of > "internal error". This stuff happens and robust apps are going to want to > at least phone home about this. > > Do you have a suggestion for the enums (generic error, transport failure, > security failure)? > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com > <mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>> wrote: > We need a similar set of error events for recording. It would be good to > find a way to do this without creating a lot of new classes. Could we > define a single that gUM, webRTC, recording and takePhoto could use? > Jim > > On Mar 2, 2013, at 9:17 AM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto: > ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm starting to come to the conclusion that we need some ways > > to implement error notification as distinct from either > setLocal/setRemote > > or state notification. Here are some examples of events that don't > > seem to me to have a logical way to report to the programmer: > > > > - ICE allocation failed (e.g., couldn't actually allocate sockets for > > each component.) Obviously, you could report that allocation > > is *done* but it's not like a naive application is going to notice > > that candidates are missing. > > > > - DTLS-SRTP handshake failed. > > > > - The ever-famous "internal error". > > > > I would suggest that we have some sort of "onerror" event, perhaps > > with a numeric error enum and a string that is explanatory. > > > > Thoughts, > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 00:13:09 UTC