- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:46 +0200
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On 07/16/2015 05:27 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > On 7/15/15 5:03 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> If we plan to fail when an RTCIceCandidate is constructed with a bad >>> candidate string, we need to perform the same check every time the >>> corresponding attribute is set. >> Yep. Which argues that the RTCIceCandidate should either be immutable or >> allow syntactically invalid candidates. >> >> Otherwise, this will work: >> >> c.candidate = part1 + ' ' + part2 >> >> but this will not work >> >> c.candidate = part1 >> c.candidate += ' ' >> c.candidate += part2 >> >> Violates the principle of least surprise. > > Good point. Not to advocate change, but just for info, what was the > rationale for RTCIceCandidate not just being a dictionary? Speaking from memory.... when RTCIceCandidate and RTCSessionDescription were added to the spec, we felt that having these as interfaces would allow us to provide them with accessors and manipulators at a later stage (one could imagine having RTCIceCandidate having a "syntacticallyValid" attribute, for instance). This was before we started falling in love with dictionaries. Many moons ago....
Received on Friday, 17 July 2015 08:20:20 UTC