W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Issue 619: setDirection()

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:54:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGx_yYgDNZj1qs=nxq57EdoMYPu9GZRYPHkBJYG8xNhjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
​Although I left some comments for improvements in the PR, I think that
generally speaking this is the right approach to take.

Do we need to update JSEP as well?

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Peter Thatcher said:
>
>
>
> "I thought about this some more, and I think that if we have {direction:
> "sendrecv"} in the construction of an RtpTransceiver, we probably ought to
> have .setDirection instead of .activateSender. That would be easier to
> specify and would allow the application to change direction in any way
> (sender/receiver active/inactive).”
>
>
>
> [BA] I agree that setDirection() would be more consistent (and succinct)
> than activateSender() and activateReceiver(), so I’ve submitted an Issue
> relating to this:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/619
>
>
>
> Also, here is a PR to add setDirection() (and remove activateSender() and
> activateReceiver():
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/620
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 May 2016 22:55:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:48 UTC