Re: What would you like to see in WebRTC next? A low-level API?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:52 AM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/01/2018 10:59, Philipp Hancke 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> +1 I think we have been focusing so much on interoperability with
> inexistent endpoints (ice and dtls but not bundle, for example),
> covering edge cases and trying to map legacy technology to webrtc that
> we have make the simple cases extremely difficult to understand and use
> for the normal use cases.
>
> Whatever we decide to go for next chapter (I have some proposals I will
> send later), IMHO we should change our mindset to "API first".
>

That's always been my mindset.


>
> Best regards
>
> Sergio
>
>
>