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

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

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:40:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh3ACOMwmLQkALn-8fa+r35Z20M2X-Xi+_vfsyZauvBP9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
As far as I know, yes, there's a lot of interest on using WebRTC
server-side and for native (non-browser) applications, so a native API
& bindings are being necesary. I know personally three companies (my
employer is one of them) having difficulties to work with native
WebRTC APIs, and from a personal perspectice, I'm interested on it so
I can be able to develop in-browser and server-side head-less WebRTC
applications using the same base code.

2014/1/17 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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.
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 16:41:18 UTC

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