Re: Improvements suggestion for DataChannels

On 2014-03-03 15:15, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 3/3/2014 8:06 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 3 March 2014 04:18, Adam Bergkvist <>
>> wrote:
>>> I still think that's strange API behavior.
>> I don't see any strangeness here.  If I have a reference, then the
>> object is not garbage collected.  If not, then not.
> Agree with Martin.  It seems totally normal - things stay alive
> (accessible) so long as they're referenced.  Telling it to close()
> disconnects it, but the object exists so long as the reference exists.

I agree that what you describe is totally normal. The thing I was 
referring to was the conditional side effect of close(). That the 
channel should be removed from the PeerConnection's channel list if it 
was never accessed via that list, otherwise not. That may have been a 
misunderstanding from my side btw.


Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2014 08:57:29 UTC