Using adapter.js

Features
1

Following the discussion here
I’ve just pushed a PR (here)[https://github.com/lynckia/licode/pull/940] that includes adapter.js and greatly simplifies the differences between the different stacks.

To answer @Francesco_Durighetto question about pros and cons I started playing around with it and couldn’t stop until it was working :slight_smile:
cons
Frankly, I don’t see any cons besides adding a new library to the Client. We’re planning on updating the process of including libraries to make it less rudimentary.
pros

  • I’ve managed to merge almost all the functionality of FirefoxStack and ChromeStack into BaseStack, making it more readable in the process. No more error-prone duplicated code.
  • No more constraints for different browser’s getUserMedia causing headaches.
  • It should be a lot easier to add support for new browsers in the client side if we trust adapter.js will be updated.

Of course, we will welcome all the help we get to test this.

2

Really appreciate your work, can’t wait to test it!!!

I am currently testing the simulcast 'cause I’m ready to push it in production but found some “critical” issue with new version of chrome. I opened an issue in github.

Once fixed I’ll jump on the client side!