4 ms·
Reading the article I linked in my first post, my understanding is that it is possible to use WebRTC for UDP _today_ but its just very difficult? "while WebRTC
by mentos 9y ago
Reading the article I linked in my first post, my understanding is that it is possible to use WebRTC for UDP _today_ but its just very difficult?
"while WebRTC makes it easy to send unreliable-unordered data from one browser to another, it falls down when data needs to be sent between a browser and a dedicated server...It falls down because WebRTC is extremely complex. This complexity is understandable, being designed primarily to support peer-to-peer communication between browsers, WebRTC needs STUN, ICE and TURN support for NAT traversal and packet forwarding in the worst case."
Given your experience with WebRTC stcredzero, do you think it is possible to wrap WebRTC in a class to emulate UDP? What is the hold up?
- 3648 9y agoIt takes some time to develop and existing implementations aren't very mature yet, e.g., https://github.com/xhs/librtcdc https://github.com/xhs/librtcdc and https://github.com/chadnickbok/librtcdcpp https://github.com/chadnickbok/librtcdcpp
- stcredzero 9y agoit falls down when data needs to be sent between a browser and a dedicated server...It falls down because WebRTC is extremely complex. The SimplePeer library works very well to hide the complexity of WebRTC. It works just fine for me. The big sticking point is the complexity/overhead of the setup. This might be mitigated by using the true headless modes in Chromium and Firefox. Given what I remember from installing dependencies, it should be possible to create a fairly lightweight headless fork that only has just enough to run WebRTC datachannels. So, if you don't need lots of scaling and can deal with the overhead, there is no hold-up right this moment. It's just a matter of motivation.