W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

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

From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:13:07 +0100
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-ID: <c8fa0cf7-969c-326d-21db-4ab983788260@goodadvice.pages.de>

Am 24.01.2018 um 17:33 schrieb Peter Thatcher:
> 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.

This doesn't match my perception of discuss-webrtc, stackoverflow or a 
bunch of github repositories. Nor what I saw here:
Am I missing a place where I can learn about issues before they hit me?

> 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)?

Some of us have to support four browsers :-p
So, without ORTC support in Firefox I would probably have applied the 
same shim as in Edge.

For the same reason I shimmed addTrack for Chrome in adapter. The 
alternative would have been to either not use addTrack which would 
probably have resulted in lots of stuff breaking (cf how much effort it 
took to get the interactions between addTrack and legacy 
getLocalStreams() etc right) or to sprinkle "if (isChrome) useAddStream 
else useAddTrack" in even more places.
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2018 09:13:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 January 2018 09:13:43 UTC