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

Re: Removing syntaxerror for ice candidates

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:46:04 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B3734D464@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Reading back on this discussion I note:

- discussion on why RTCIceCandidate is not a dictionary, but it seems to 
become one with [1]
- arguments that if we have "fail on malformed" when constructing we 
should have it on addIceCandidate as well - but I don't think we have a 
check when constructing


So I think it makes sense to merge [2]. Anyone disagreeing?

Stefan

[1] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/302
[2] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/242

On 17/07/15 10:22, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 23 September 2015 09:46:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:46 UTC