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

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

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:20:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMOyEb33d2y2K7omRX+RPHucZerNLr9P==1Q7ddiO-tGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:34 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> 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).

That (or the library from Firefox were we to extract it) wouldn't be
a "reference implementation" but merely an "implementation"


> 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.

That is out of scope for this effort.

-Ekr

> 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>
>
> On Jan 17, 2014 5:32 PM, "cowwoc" <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>
>>> 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 Saturday, 18 January 2014 23:21:38 UTC

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