Re: Specify the negotiationneeded event

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