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

Iñaki,

That's not what I'm talking about or asking for.

I'm not talking about "one library to rule all" but rather a reference 
implementation by one of the vendors (I used Google as an example 
because their implementation is already up on webrtc.org). Nothing would 
prevent others from coming up with alternate libraries, or forking Google's.

I'm just saying that we should have *at least one* Native API that 
mirrors the Javascript API.

Gili

On 17/01/2014 11:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> The mission of W3C is to define a JS API, and the mission of the IETF 
> is to create a set of specifications. Code and libraries don't belong 
> to them.
>
> And honestly, I don't like the idea of "one library to rule all". APIs 
> in smart phones are vendor specific stuff so you are not talking about 
> a "native API" but about "code" for proprietary operating systems. Not 
> here please.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
> On Jan 17, 2014 5:32 PM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk>> написал:
>
>             On 17 Jan 2014, at 06:53, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>             <mailto: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.
>
>
>
>