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

Re: Summary of "What is missing for building real services" thread

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:30:40 -0500
Message-ID: <52D95AB0.2040206@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
CC: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
So guys: is there a strong interest in a more complete Native API that 
would parallel the Javascript API? If so, please let us know.

Thanks,
Gili

On 17/01/2014 4:42 AM, Alexey Aylarov wrote:
> I guess Mozilla has their own native library/code base , so there are at
> least two.
>   
> Alexey
>
> 17/01/14 13:29 пользователь "Tim Panton new" <thp@westhawk.co.uk> написал:
>
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 06:53, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/01/2014 1:44 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>> On 01/17/2014 05:55 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't strictly tied to the spec, but I think it makes a lot of
>>>>> sense to release a Native API at the same time as v1 that implements
>>>>> the same functionality as the Javascript API.
>>>> That's out of scope for the standardization activity, however.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> Exactly who do you think would be interested in releasing such a thing?
>>> I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> A related question is if someone comes along and does this legwork
>>> (moving code from Chrome to the Native API), would Google consider
>>> folding these changes into official Chrome releases... The benefit being
>>> that this would simplify future WebRTC integration work for any future
>>> browsers who want to jump on board (but are not necessarily based on
>>> Blink).
>>>
>>> So in theory, this benefits both the browsers and authors of native
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Gili
>> I fully agree that a good native library would be great, however....
>>
> >From the standardization perspective this could be a bad thing. We are
>> risking a mono culture here, where every WebRTC implementation comes from
>> the same code base. I'm not keen on that. In the old days you needed 2
>> independent implementation before you could claim a standard was workable.
>>
>> Tim.
>
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 16:31:34 UTC

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