- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:23:54 +0100
- To: "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com>
- CC: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>
On 2014-11-27 15:39, Bassbouss, Louay wrote:
[...]
>> Whatever the solution, it is going to impact how these sessions are
>> exposed to receivers since "navigator.presentation.session" is a
>> singleton right now. It might be good to handle the possibility for
>> receivers to have multiple senders as soon as possible.
> [Louay]
> I think we need to clearly describe what a "session" is. Currently session is like a channel. In multiple senders case, we need multiple channels but not necessary multiple sessions. What do you think about this proposal?
> session.onconnect = function(evt){
> var c = e.channel;
> c.postMessage("Hello Sender, you are now connected");
> c.onmessage = function(){...}
> c.onstatechange = function(){...}
> }
Right, it could be convenient to expose a root session object, on top of
individual channels:
- the presentationId could be repeated across channels but would better
sit at the session level.
- this would be the natural place for a possible broadcast postMessage
function
- similarly, the session interface could also expose a "close" function
that closes all channels at once... although do we want a "close"
function on the receiver side actually? Or is the receiver to be viewed
as a slave of at least one sender? There is no "close" function in the
Google Cast Receiver API [1] for instance.
Francois.
[1] https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/reference/receiver/
Received on Friday, 28 November 2014 10:24:11 UTC