W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2014

Re: per-DataChannel stats: on PeerConnection or on DataChannel?

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:29:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh0ukm9YgxrB7+nii4TvbqWRKYhi=MU565rr3tns6EtXgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Donald Curtis <decurtis@google.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Luis López Fernández <lulop@kurento.com>
Moving getStats() to a per-class method, it should be a read-only property
instead of a getter.
El 19/12/2014 07:32, "Stefan Håkansson LK" <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
escribió:

> On 18/12/14 21:57, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> > On 12/18/14, 3:20 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> >>
> >> I prefer B.  LIkewise, I think it makes sense to eventually have
> >> RtpSender.getStats, DtlsTransport.getStats, and IceTransport.getStats.
> >
> > Presuming you mean:
> >
> > partial interface RTCDataChannel {
> >      Promise<RTCStatsReport> getStats ();
> > }
> >
> > then I agree. The getStats API was designed before the proliferation of
> > sub-objects like RtpSender etc. so this seems like the proper evolution.
>
> I also think this is the natural way to do it (and presumably we should
> have stats on RtpReceiver as well to maintain the possibility to get
> stats for received tracks).
>
> However, I've not thought through what it would mean in terms of
> document structure (now that we've moved definition of _what_ stats to
> report into a separate document).
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 07:30:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:42 UTC