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

Re: Is onsignalingstatechange synchronous?

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:01:16 +0200
Message-ID: <519A108C.2050607@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2013-05-15 01:41, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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.

I think it makes sense to update this text as described above.

Regarding when the state change occurs and the event is dispatched, see [1].


[1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#set-description-model
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 12:01:42 UTC

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