W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Specify the negotiationneeded event

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:20:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxu_ZHvu31G6jeAPB8Uw+s1Kk+kRbhQ8moLeG6V8um3O3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That is a good way of describing it.
>
> On 13 February 2015 at 11:24, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> > For simplicity, 'dirty' is not cleared by any other operations, such as
> > addTrack(X) followed by removeTrack(X). We should accept that it is far
> > better to fire too many onNN events than too few; spurious onNNs are
> > essentially harmless, whereas missing onNNs may be fatal.
>
> I'll note that, as you describe it, you won't be generating many onNN
> events at all, in fact, fewer than might otherwise be generated due to
> on-off-on-again actions like addTrack and removeTrack in series.
>

I think some of the current code expects an onNN event on each addTrack or
removeTrack it issues. I would agree that the proposed logic is much better
then what is implemented currently, but I am a bit concerned about the
transition from the current implementations to new logic.
_____________
Roman Shpount
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 00:20:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC