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

Re: Panic between createOffer() and setLocalDescription()

From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:19:16 +0000
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <984689FB-17AF-4138-A492-A4B3F92B5336@phonefromhere.com>
To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>

On 20 Feb 2014, at 18:36, piranna@gmail.com wrote:

> Promises will help here, but good APIs are not in contraposition of
> languages failures. Merge this calls maybe it's a little bit of sugar
> syntaxis, but it's not a bad thing at all... But definitelly, I don't
> agree with the sentence about "WebRTC is designed to build wrapping
> libraries". Low level is ok, but should be easy to use "as is", if you
> are forced to use a library you are learning to use that library, not
> the APIs that offer the browser.

Like xmlHttpRequest and DOM - which no one actually uses directly, 
everyone uses jquery or angular or polymer or whatever.

Like I said, the moment we decided not to do an API that 
embedded a single signalling protocol ( eg SIP or xmpp or iax) 
we at that moment decided it wouldn't be a 'highlevel' api
in the 

navigator.dial("e164@weshawk.co.uk",{video:true});

mould.

Let me emphasise we made the correct decision, but you can't have a
simple highlevel API without baked in signalling (IMHO). But that doesn't
matter, because there are libraries, some of them quite good already.

T.  
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 20:19:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:38 UTC