Re: Naming question to resolve: state vs. readystate vs connectionstate

I have change the event names to be consistent.  Please take a look and see
if it's correct.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com
> wrote:

> Most people seems to favor "state", so lets use that and proceed with
> the PR.
>
> This matches what's in the PR right now, but I do believe we need to
> update the corresponding event types to match that.
>
> /Adam
>
> On 2015-08-26 02:51, Justin Uberti wrote:
> > Unless we have multiple states on the same object that make .state
> > ambiguous (which I don't think is the case here), I think .state >>
> > everything else.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com
> > <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     transport.transportState is needlessly verbose.
> >       transport.readyState and transport.connectionState at least match
> >     something somewhere else.  transport.transportState might as well
> >     just be transport.state, since .transportState doesn't exist
> >     anywhere else.
> >
> >     On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net
> >     <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
> >
> >         2015-08-25 10:37 GMT+02:00 Adam Bergkvist
> >         <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com <mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com
> >>:
> >          > IceTransport.connectionState (type: RTCIceConnectionState)
> >
> >         Shouldn't it be RTCIceTransportState?
> >
> >
> >          > RTCDtlsTransport.transportState (type: RTCDtlsTransportState)
> >
> >         Otherwise this should be:
> >
> >         RTCDtlsTransport.connectionState (type: RTCDtlsConnectionState)
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         Iñaki Baz Castillo
> >         <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>