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 08:37:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh3iST2vHi6Kd=yO048GyDShR+P=fH+cHQi4EyWK_XaEZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Donald Curtis <decurtis@google.com>, Luis López Fernández <lulop@kurento.com>
Didn't thought about the promise issue, in that case it would be a strange
API. Is the promise necesary in that case? We are only retrieving data, not
processing anything...
El 19/12/2014 08:34, "Peter Thatcher" <pthatcher@google.com> escribió:

> A property that returns a promise?  Are there such things?
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:29 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 07:38:20 UTC

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