Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

On 09/19/2011 03:23 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
>    
>> The point was made repeatedly when I explained this primary area of contention that we want it to be easy to use by the "little guys", and that even if signalling was a downloaded JS library, you'd end up with a wild mixture of old versions in use, which may complicate interop/federation (plus the overhead to pull them down, and some possible security issues).
>>      
>
> And you think having it in the Browsers won't end up with a wild mixture of old versions in use, and complicated interop/federation?
> And on top of it you'll end up with a wild mixture of signaling vendors, because there'll be a mixture of Browser vendors and it's unlikely they'll all use the same source code inside.  What's worse, it won't be controllable by the JS developer.  At least with a JS library they're all using the same source code, and the JS developer knows what it was/did if it was an older version.
>
> With regard to the issue of overhead of pulling it down every time, I thought browsers cache JS scripts, no?
>
> -hadriel
>    


They should cache the JIT resultant bytecode.



-- 

---
<i>The wheel.</i metro-link=t dzonatasolyndra>