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

Fwd: What is missing for building "real" services?

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:38:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh01xZJr1chQbfgdZ7pW_XdJLFssy7BXX4ckZQd7Wtdh2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
> * It is too much cumbersome to create a DataChannel-only connection and
> there are too much concepts related to it: SDP, offer, answer,
> PeerConnection objects, signaling channel (common sense says, if you already
> has a channel to comunicate between both peers, why you would create another
> one)... Too much complicated and anti-intuitive.
> On this aspect, however, I think the answer is "live with it". It's just the
> way the design is.
Yeah, I know it's a complain without solution (at least for the
moment) and there's currently no other alternative, I just wanted to
notice it.

> * Finally, nothing has been talked officially about add support for
> PeerConnection inside WebWorkers (specially SharedWorkers or the upcoming
> ServiceWorkers), when it would be useful for maintain connections open or to
> do transfers on background.
> Someone who actually understands the *Workers model needs to propose
> something here.
> It's been suggested that "all" we need to do is to make MediaStreams and/or
> MediaStreamChannels transferable objects - but I suspect there are devils in
> the details here.
For DataChannels as far as I read/understand, a lot of work done for
WebSockets on WebWorkers would be reused...

"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
 Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 17:39:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC