[whatwg] ConnectionPeer experiences

[Patrik Persson J]

That is a very good point, and the name "add..." made me, too, suspect that ConnectionPeer could potentially be applied to multicast scenarios.

However, it seems to me that this would quickly get rather complex.  A single peer that connects to multiple others would still require the implementation to combine multiple addRemoteConfiguration() calls into a multicast configuration or something similar.  I'm not quite sure how that would work, but if it can be done, it can also be done with multiple one-to-one ConnectionPeers.

The alternative would be to use one ConnectionPeer for each peer you're connected to.  I think this is more straight-forward from an API point of view.  I also don't think this would restrict the potential for efficient multicast (for reasons outlined ebove).

Feel free to set me straight.  Perhaps question 3 in my original message could be read a follows:

Is the ConnectionPeer intended to be used in a one-to-many setting (using a single ConnectionPeer in the 'one' end)?  If so, how would that work?

Cheers, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org 
> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Adam 
> Malcontenti-Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] ConnectionPeer experiences
> 
> Hi,
> I was noticing how you were suggesting to change 
> addRemoteConfiguration to setRemoteConfiguration as it 
> appears as a single-point-to-single-point connection, is this 
> part of the current specification or could 
> single-point-to-multiple-points connections (or
> "clouds") be implemented using the same API in the future? 
> This would be a big bandwidth saver for users in "group 
> chats" that would make some sense to use add rather than set 
> (and perhaps have another optional parameter to replace 
> rather than append or add).
> 
> Thanks and sorry for butting in,
> -- Adam M-W
> 
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrik Persson J 
> <patrik.j.persson at ericsson.com> wrote:
> > Oh, thanks!
> >
> > Your question is a good one.  We're looking into precisely 
> that, and expect to learn more in our continued implementation work.
> >
> > We're also participating in the discussion on these matters 
> in RTC-Web [http://rtc-web.alvestrand.com/].
> >
> > -- Patrik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk at opera.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:38 AM
> > To: 'whatwg at lists.whatwg.org'; Patrik Persson J
> > Subject: Re: [whatwg] ConnectionPeer experiences
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:34:11 +0100, Anne van Kesteren 
> > <annevk at opera.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Could you elaborate more on the details of the protocol?
> >> Handshake/framing/etc. Is it something that can be independently 
> >> implemented? Agreement on that is what is holding back this API at 
> >> the moment.
> >
> > Oh, and also, extremely awesome! :-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anne van Kesteren
> > http://annevankesteren.nl/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Adam Malcontenti-Wilson
>