- From: <piranna@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 21:45:43 +0200
- To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKfGGh2W9DS_+nFxJTzzUnP7mEsK4Rfn=5ft966h7wTy9mPZBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, the spec say it. The datachannel event is new, so I think it should work the way I said. El 29/05/2013 20:53, "Randell Jesup" <randell-ietf@jesup.org> escribió: > > On 5/29/2013 3:53 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> When you call to createDataChannel() you get a "connecting" >> DataChannel, and when connection gets stablished you get an "open" >> event over it. On the other hand, on the receiver side you only get a >> "datachannel" event with the new DataChannel, thats already open. >> Doesn't it makes more sense that the "datachannel" event raise a >> "connecting" DataChannel to be able to do pre-open initializations and >> later raise the "open" event instead of do both things at the same >> time? This would also easy to reuse code on applications when both end >> are symetric. >> >> If it's done this way just to ear a data flight, it would be mimic >> just setting on the specification the "datachannel" event before >> setting/changing the status to "open" and adding afterthat an "open" >> event. >> >> > The spec is incorrect if it states this; we agreed that both sides > should get an onopen event to parallel WebSockets > > I believe adam is updating the datachannel spec this week > > Randell > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 19:46:11 UTC