- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:42:57 +0100
- 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 <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 17:43:45 UTC