Re: Improvements suggestion for DataChannels

On 2014-03-04 10:07, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 08:57, Adam Bergkvist <> wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't think that this needs to be conditional in that way.  You can
> break the links, or not, but there is no need to do so conditionally.
> I am perfectly happy with the behaviour regarding these collections
> after close() to be undefined in spec.
> On the one hand, you can just close the connection and render it
> impotent.  Channels already created would still be accessible, but
> useless.
> On the other hand, you could also flush the collection to prevent
> later access to channels (of those that the application doesn't
> already have a saved reference).
> Seems like unimportant detail to me.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the second case. I think the flushing should depend on the 
channels state (closed) alone, not if the app has any other references 
to it.


Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2014 09:19:38 UTC