- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 04:37:38 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 30/04/2014 4:22 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: > On 2014-04-30 07:26, Justin Uberti wrote: >> Since RTCConfiguration is no longer solely about ICE, and we now have >> PeerConnection.getConfiguration(), I propose that >> PeerConnection.updateIce() be renamed to >> PeerConnection.updateConfiguration(), or perhaps even >> PeerConnection.setConfiguration(). >> >> Any objections to this change? > > I support this. > > /Adam > I think setConfiguration(RTCConfiguration) is preferable in the sense that you don't want to end up with PeerConnection.getConfiguration() returning a value that doesn't actually correspond to the current PeerConnection state. If you use the Builder design pattern, you could do even better: PeerConnection.getConfiguration().changeSomething().apply() where PeerConnection.getConfiguration() returns a copy-on-write configuration object and apply() updates the PeerConnection, otherwise the object is discarded and never used. Gili
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2014 08:38:42 UTC