- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:42:19 +0200
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2014-05-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>: > I would find it better that process gets blocked until the buffer gets > some space available (it's said, it has send something), No way. JavaScript event loop MUST NEVER block. If it blocked all the web would block (even a mouse click, timers, etc). Just the alert() call blocks the JavaScript event loop (and you know how "usable" a web is while displaying an alert) ;) > or raise an error or throw an exception That's the same :) And yes, the implementation (at least in Chrome) does raise an error (BTW an undocumented kind of error, of course, as most of the WebRTC errors...). > but NO close the channel... Too much agressive to my taste, specially without being able to know how to > preven it... I agree. Anyhow: I've tested that Chrome does NOT close the socket after raising the error. This is, you can send data after some time on the same socket. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 15:43:06 UTC