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

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

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:42:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfmWzwK58f4JUL1xjyn-KMwQDb7TKBKaWW4UKrS-KtF23g@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
2014/1/17 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>:
> 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.

No. We need specifications and standards. And if there is interest
then smart guys will develop libraries/stacks based on those
specifications (in different programming languages) by providing the
API they want (because I'm very sure you have never requested to
Asterisk and FreeSwitch, or Apache and Nginx, that they must offer the
same API).

But you cannot tell to a W3C or IETF group that "we need a reference
implementation". If the specs are good then you DO NOT need to learn
from the code of others, nor to copy it.

Honestly, if we need to use Google WebRTC code for every WebRTC
project then that means that the specifications are BAD (how can it be
different after mandating the usage of the painful SDP O/A?).

Iñaki Baz Castillo
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 17:43:45 UTC

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