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

Re: Sending very large chunks over the data channel

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:17:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkR=eQ7YszRS7iuZz41SjZwLsF-6cO3AmmEM5h0YGLwUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2014-05-28 14:04 GMT+02:00 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>:
>> This is JavaScript land. Why does not the browser just allocate space
>> for *all* the data provided in send() calls and deals with EAGAIN and
>> similar stuff internally? This is, send() NEVER fails, period. The
>> browser holds the data and sends it when it can. The JS code still can
>> check the bufferedAmount attribute in order to detect memory leaks due
>> to slow sending.
>
>
> That's what the API looks like now. Until it fails, it works.

Not the same. I meant "send() MUST never fail".


> We're discussing what to do when the browser is unable to do that.

You mean that the browsers runs out of memory to store the pending
data to be sent?


> There's only so many gigabytes of storage available on the devices these
> days.

Sorry, I don't get it.



>> BTW: if I send a HTTP POST request with a large body (a ISO image) via
>> AJAX, would I get an error if the "sending buffer" is full? AFAIK no,
>> right? if so, why don't we provide the same behavior for DataChannel's
>> send() method?
>
> Please show me your Javascript that sends a large video file using HTTP
> POST.
>
> Code speaks louder than words here.

I haven't. I was just wondering.

Anyhow, do you see that the XMLHttpRequest.send() returns error or
fires an exception? me not:

https://developer.mozilla.org/es/docs/XMLHttpRequest#send()

so? why is so unfeasible to have the same behavior for DataChannel.send()?



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 12:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:40 UTC