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

Re: Is onsignalingstatechange synchronous?

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:41:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUsO5Yg7vKJ9cQTNeCuE0H1qoLxeW+Ky9WgEBq=FJ+Hbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 14 May 2013 11:59, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> The problem with the current spec is that the state transitions are all
> worded in a way that assumes success. Look at Jan-Ivar's example:
> have-local-offer    A local description, of type "offer", has been supplied.
> That's an extremely naïve way of describing it, since it presumes that the
> SDP is valid and that the PeerConnection signaling state machine was in a
> state for which supplying local offer made sense. (Alternately, on its face,
> it means that the state changes to "have-local-offer" regardless of whether
> the offer was valid or whether it made any sense to supply it). So, when I
> said "and successful," what I really meant was that it would be far clearer
> to say something like:
> have-local-offer    A local description, of type "offer", has been
> successfully applied.

The "supplied" makes some (bad) assumptions about what/who is
supplying and what/who is receiving.  It can't be application ->
browser if the state transition is to make any sense.  "successfully
applied" is definitely a better choice of words.

> Obviously, failures can make the state transition in other ways, but that's
> not what I was referring to above.
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 23:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:43 UTC