- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:33:13 +0000
- To: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGoz9iJEEV1WWX-hCFnwEy-O+wuki01xUVH6MJKqPBsaA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> wrote: > Am 24.01.2018 um 00:37 schrieb Bernard Aboba: > > I'll provide some more detailed comments later, but would like to > provide a few high-level thoughts (with my Chair hat off). > > > > Overall, my experience with developers is that they care most about > stability and functionality. > > > > If there is a way to make something work, and if it is stable enough to > deploy in production, they will incorporate it into their applications, > even if many of would consider it a "hideous hack". > > > > So enabling something new, useful and solid is a good way to gain > developer mindset. > > > > Doing the same thing in a more elegant way can be intellectually > satisfying, but can be hard to convince developers to utilize if their > existing code can do the same thing, albeit somewhat more clumsily. > > > > All this to say that if the goal is to create things that developers > will use, it is often best to start from problems: things developers want > to do, but have not been able to do so far. > > Having ported a rather complex app to use addTrack&friends instead of > the "legacy" addStream one I can say that: > 1) I haven't found much that I could not do with addStream > 2) it takes a lot of time and has close to zero business value > 3) you pay an extra price for using the latest and greatest. When your > CI dashboard goes red because you happen to be using Chrome's native > addTrack because its available and not quite ready yet... > 4) I mainly did this to ensure the WG doesn't specify things that will > make my life harder in the distant future > 5) if I had to start from scratch I would use the "legacy" APIs. > > There is also a great disconnect between what the WG is doing and what > (web) application developers need, judging by the (lack of) involvement > of that group. > We (Chrome WebRTC implementors) get a pretty continuous stream of feedback from web app developers. And some of us (myself included) are working on both WebRTC implementations and web apps. I started this thread trying to distill down a summary of what we're hearing from web app developers most often: they want more direct, low-level control. But I agree it would be nice to have more app developers providing direct input in the WG. Your case of addStream vs addTrack is interesting: would you have been better off if we (Chrome) had shipped ORTC (or something lower-level) first rather than focusing on finishing addTrack (as we are currently doing)? > > I am still happy with Edge's take on ORTC even though given the lack of > support in other browsers means that doing something as crazy as > implementing RTCPeerConnection ontop of it is viable. > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2018 16:33:48 UTC