Closed
Bug 857894
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Rename readyState attribute on PeerConnection object to signalingState
Categories
(Core :: WebRTC, defect)
Core
WebRTC
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: jsmith, Assigned: abr)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [WebRTC][blocking-webrtc-][spec-issue])
Chrome just renamed readyState to signalingState per the WebRTC spec. We should do the same here.
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [WebRTC][blocking-webrtc-]
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [WebRTC][blocking-webrtc-] → [WebRTC][blocking-webrtc-][spec-issue]
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → adam
It is not just the rename though. SingalingState has different values per spec than the readyState. I think we should reflect that in the bug as well.
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Suhas from comment #3)
> It is not just the rename though. SingalingState has different values per
> spec than the readyState. I think we should reflect that in the bug as well.
Yeah, that's part of why I grabbed the bug -- I wanted to make sure that the behavior was fully researched before it was implemented. I didn't know off the top of my head whether an attribute rename would do it and wanted to double-check...
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Adam Roach [:abr] from comment #4)
> (In reply to Suhas from comment #3)
> > It is not just the rename though. SingalingState has different values per
> > spec than the readyState. I think we should reflect that in the bug as well.
>
> Yeah, that's part of why I grabbed the bug -- I wanted to make sure that the
> behavior was fully researched before it was implemented. I didn't know off
> the top of my head whether an attribute rename would do it and wanted to
> double-check...
Right. I filed bug 859432 about that as well.
Depends on: 859432
Probably we should leave the readyState as it is for now and implement signalingState on the peer connection and hook it back into sipcc.
readyState seems to go out of spec sooner or later for PeerConnection.
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Suhas from comment #6)
> Probably we should leave the readyState as it is for now and implement
> signalingState on the peer connection and hook it back into sipcc.
>
> readyState seems to go out of spec sooner or later for PeerConnection.
Or we just pull out the readyState attribute now to get alignment in spec and just implement the signalingState support.
Sadly, readyState is spread out in the spec still today and there might be implementations that depend on them. Probably we should get out a mail to W3C on removing the readyState for the PeerConnection. Also to note the readyState is still well defined for DataChannel though.
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Suhas from comment #8)
> Sadly, readyState is spread out in the spec still today and there might be
> implementations that depend on them. Probably we should get out a mail to
> W3C on removing the readyState for the PeerConnection. Also to note the
> readyState is still well defined for DataChannel though.
Hmm...maybe the right thing to do here then is:
1. Implement signalingState independent of readyState for now (first bug)
2. Start the W3C Discussion for pulling readyState out of PC spec
3. File a bug for tracking removal of readyState
4. Close this bug out as invalid for now by it's original definition
Does that work?
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jason Smith [:jsmith] from comment #9)
> (In reply to Suhas from comment #8)
> > Sadly, readyState is spread out in the spec still today and there might be
> > implementations that depend on them. Probably we should get out a mail to
> > W3C on removing the readyState for the PeerConnection. Also to note the
> > readyState is still well defined for DataChannel though.
>
> Hmm...maybe the right thing to do here then is:
>
> 1. Implement signalingState independent of readyState for now (first bug)
> 2. Start the W3C Discussion for pulling readyState out of PC spec
> 3. File a bug for tracking removal of readyState
> 4. Close this bug out as invalid for now by it's original definition
>
> Does that work?
I like it.
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
+1 from me as well
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
I'm closing this bug as invalid along with bug 859432 and opening new bugs respectively for:
1. Creation of the signalingState attribute
2. Removal of the readyState attribute if the working group agrees
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•