Re: [discuss-webrtc] WebRTC for Client-to-Server communication

[PhistucK]

Probably.

☆PhistucK

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Vadim Marchenko <vadim.v....@gmail.com> wrote:

Is it easier and more efficient to use WebRTC instead of websockets to have client-to-server kind of communication if I only need to send live media stream to server for further broadcasting purposes? 

--
 
 
 

[T Man]

How would you do it without WebRTC?? beats me? oO

[Ivan Vučica]

I presume Vadim refers to the peer-to-peer component of WebRTC, not the camera access component. 

To answer Vadim, it's probably possible to read the image data (since I saw demos where the image can be painted into a canvas), but it would almost certainly not be as efficient. For one, you'd at the very least have to implement a codec in Javascript to avoid uploading uncompressed image data, since you can't get just the compressed stream for further transmission via your own channels.

In short, you'd be better off using WebRTC on the client side, and figure out the best way to write a server side component. One way is using Chrome's open source WebRTC libraries, but you could also just implement ICE and RTP differently, and parse SDP on your own.

--
 
 
 

--

Ivan Vučica

iv...@vucica.net - http://ivan.vucica.net/

[Ralph Giles]

On 12-11-12 1:19 AM, Vadim Marchenko wrote:
> Is it easier and more efficient to use WebRTC instead of websockets to
> have client-to-server kind of communication if I only need to send live
> media stream to server for further broadcasting purposes?

Probably not.

The main reason to use webrtc is when you want to minimize the
transmission delay. Uploading over websockets will give you more
reliable transmission, which is usually what you want if you're not
broadcasting live.

-r