Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.

Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.

R=pthatcher@webrtc.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d889f3aa86639a68
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12153}

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-03-29 01:22:31]

deadbeef@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ pthatcher@webrtc.org

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-03-29 01:22:31]

While I'm at it, should I make "active" nullable? Currently it's nullable in the
WebRTC editor's draft, but maybe that's just an oversight.

[pthatcher1, 2016-03-29 21:20:40]

lgtm

I don't think it's worth having a nullable active field, but a dictionary field
can always be undefined, so we have to pick a default.  But that's a Javascript
oddity that can be handled in the Chrome layer, I think.  No point in exposing
that in C++/Java.

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-03-29 21:29:49]

On 2016/03/29 21:20:40, pthatcher1 wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> I don't think it's worth having a nullable active field, but a dictionary
field
> can always be undefined, so we have to pick a default.  But that's a
Javascript
> oddity that can be handled in the Chrome layer, I think.  No point in exposing
> that in C++/Java.

I don't think "we have to pick a default" is necessarily true. At some point the
working group could decide "an absent value means don't change the existing
value".
But if you think that's unlikely, I accept that.

[pthatcher, 2016-03-29 21:55:22]

On 2016/03/29 21:29:49, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
> On 2016/03/29 21:20:40, pthatcher1 wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > I don't think it's worth having a nullable active field, but a dictionary
> field
> > can always be undefined, so we have to pick a default.  But that's a
> Javascript
> > oddity that can be handled in the Chrome layer, I think.  No point in
exposing
> > that in C++/Java.
> 
> I don't think "we have to pick a default" is necessarily true. At some point
the
> working group could decide "an absent value means don't change the existing
> value".
> But if you think that's unlikely, I accept that.

Good point.  It could also be "undefined is unacceptable and causes an error".

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-03-30 00:21:44]

Description was changed from

==========
Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.
==========

to

==========
Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.

R=pthatcher@webrtc.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d...
==========

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-03-30 00:21:46]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d889f3aa86639a68 (presubmit successful).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-30 00:21:48]

Description was changed from

==========
Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.

R=pthatcher@webrtc.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d...
==========

to

==========
Adding JNI binding for 'active' field in RTP encodings.

R=pthatcher@webrtc.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d889f3aa86639a68
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12153}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-30 00:21:49]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/f8711c02094b4ee695f65754d889f3aa86639a68
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12153}