[jitsi-dev] Why is DataChannels.js ready to deal with multiple DataChannels?


#1

Just that. I'm about coding the WebSocket implementation as an
abstraction into DataChannels.js and wonder why the DataChannels class
holds an array of DataChannel instances (rather than just one).

Is this feature (multiple datachannels) something that is really being used?

Thanks.

···

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


#2

Hello Inaki,

No, it's not used and if it will make things easier I think it is fine
to limit it to just one DataChannel.

···

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

Just that. I'm about coding the WebSocket implementation as an
abstraction into DataChannels.js and wonder why the DataChannels class
holds an array of DataChannel instances (rather than just one).

Is this feature (multiple datachannels) something that is really being used?

Thanks.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#3

Nice to know, thanks!

···

2017-06-13 18:15 GMT+02:00 Paweł Domas <pawel.domas@jitsi.org>:

No, it's not used and if it will make things easier I think it is fine
to limit it to just one DataChannel.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


#4

Given that the current DataChannels.js implementation will be updated
to hold a WebRTC DataChannel instance or a WebSocket instance, is it
ok for you if I rename it to Channel.js or NotificationChannel.js or
simething like that?

···

2017-06-13 18:36 GMT+02:00 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>:

2017-06-13 18:15 GMT+02:00 Paweł Domas <pawel.domas@jitsi.org>:

No, it's not used and if it will make things easier I think it is fine
to limit it to just one DataChannel.

Nice to know, thanks!

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


#5

Makes sense to me.

Boris

···

On 13/06/2017 11:40, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

2017-06-13 18:36 GMT+02:00 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>:

2017-06-13 18:15 GMT+02:00 Paweł Domas <pawel.domas@jitsi.org>:

No, it's not used and if it will make things easier I think it is fine
to limit it to just one DataChannel.

Nice to know, thanks!

Given that the current DataChannels.js implementation will be updated
to hold a WebRTC DataChannel instance or a WebSocket instance, is it
ok for you if I rename it to Channel.js or NotificationChannel.js or
simething like that?


#6

Which one? I don’t like Channel.js, it’s too generic.

···

On Jun 13, 2017, at 11:48, Boris Grozev <boris@jitsi.org> wrote:

On 13/06/2017 11:40, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

2017-06-13 18:36 GMT+02:00 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>:

2017-06-13 18:15 GMT+02:00 Paweł Domas <pawel.domas@jitsi.org>:

No, it's not used and if it will make things easier I think it is fine
to limit it to just one DataChannel.

Nice to know, thanks!

Given that the current DataChannels.js implementation will be updated
to hold a WebRTC DataChannel instance or a WebSocket instance, is it
ok for you if I rename it to Channel.js or NotificationChannel.js or
simething like that?

Makes sense to me.

--
Saúl


#7

EventChannel
NotificationChannel

···

2017-06-13 18:51 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <scorretge@atlassian.com>:

Which one? I don’t like Channel.js, it’s too generic.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


#8

None of them properly represent what it’s use is. Currently it’s also used to send the last N command, and the bitrate IIRC. I’d leave it as DataChannel for the time being, since it’s well, a data channel.

···

On Jun 13, 2017, at 12:02, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

2017-06-13 18:51 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <scorretge@atlassian.com>:

Which one? I don’t like Channel.js, it’s too generic.

EventChannel
NotificationChannel

--
Saúl


#9

Holding a *real* DataChannel or a WebSocket, IMHO it's a bad idea to
still name it "DataChannel". The confusion is obvious.

I suggest BridgeChannel, which properly represents what it does:
communicate with the videobridge to send/receive "things".

···

2017-06-13 19:35 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <scorretge@atlassian.com>:

EventChannel
NotificationChannel

None of them properly represent what it’s use is. Currently it’s also used to send the last N command, and the bitrate IIRC. I’d leave it as DataChannel for the time being, since it’s well, a data channel.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


#10

I suggest we stop bikesheding on the name, it will be a minor change once the code is ready.

···

On Jun 13, 2017, at 12:38, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

2017-06-13 19:35 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <scorretge@atlassian.com>:

EventChannel
NotificationChannel

None of them properly represent what it’s use is. Currently it’s also used to send the last N command, and the bitrate IIRC. I’d leave it as DataChannel for the time being, since it’s well, a data channel.

Holding a *real* DataChannel or a WebSocket, IMHO it's a bad idea to
still name it "DataChannel". The confusion is obvious.

I suggest BridgeChannel, which properly represents what it does:
communicate with the videobridge to send/receive "things”.

--
Saúl


#11

It is not gonna hold multiple xxx-channels anymore, but just one, so a
renaming makes sense (at least from DataChannels.js to
DataChannel.js). Not sure why to wait given the obvious confusion
"DataChannel" generates if it holds a WebSocket rather than a native
RTCDataChannel.

···

2017-06-13 19:42 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <scorretge@atlassian.com>:

I suggest we stop bikesheding on the name, it will be a minor change once the code is ready.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>