Pros of BigBlueButton

• More comprehensive solution with built-in features like whiteboard, polling, and breakout rooms
• Better suited for educational environments with specific tools for online learning
• Larger and more active community, potentially leading to faster bug fixes and feature updates

Cons of BigBlueButton

• Heavier resource requirements due to its full-featured nature
• Steeper learning curve for setup and customization
• Less flexibility for integration into existing applications compared to lib-jitsi-meet

Code Comparison

BigBlueButton (Ruby on Rails):

class Meeting < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to :room
  has_many :participants
  validates :name, presence: true
end

lib-jitsi-meet (JavaScript):

JitsiMeetJS.init(initOptions);
const connection = new JitsiMeetJS.JitsiConnection(null, null, options);
connection.addEventListener(JitsiMeetJS.events.connection.CONNECTION_ESTABLISHED, onConnectionSuccess);
connection.connect();

BigBlueButton provides a full-stack solution with server-side components, while lib-jitsi-meet focuses on client-side JavaScript for integrating Jitsi functionality into existing applications. BigBlueButton's code structure reflects its comprehensive nature, while lib-jitsi-meet offers a more lightweight and flexible approach for developers looking to add video conferencing capabilities to their projects.

Pros of PeerJS

• Simpler API for peer-to-peer connections
• Lightweight and focused solely on WebRTC peer connections
• Easier to integrate into existing projects

Cons of PeerJS

• Limited features compared to lib-jitsi-meet
• Less suitable for complex video conferencing scenarios
• Smaller community and fewer enterprise-level implementations

Code Comparison

lib-jitsi-meet:

const options = {
    hosts: {
        domain: 'jitsi-meet.example.com',
        muc: 'conference.jitsi-meet.example.com'
    },
    bosh: '//jitsi-meet.example.com/http-bind'
};
const connection = new JitsiMeetJS.JitsiConnection(null, null, options);

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer('someid', {
    host: 'localhost',
    port: 9000,
    path: '/myapp'
});

Summary

lib-jitsi-meet is a comprehensive library for building video conferencing applications with advanced features, while PeerJS focuses on simplifying peer-to-peer WebRTC connections. lib-jitsi-meet is better suited for complex, feature-rich applications, whereas PeerJS is ideal for simpler peer-to-peer implementations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity you need to handle.

Pros of RTCMultiConnection

• Simpler setup and easier to get started for basic WebRTC applications
• More flexible and customizable for various use cases
• Extensive documentation and examples for different scenarios

Cons of RTCMultiConnection

• Less enterprise-focused compared to lib-jitsi-meet
• May require more manual configuration for advanced features
• Smaller community and less frequent updates

Code Comparison

lib-jitsi-meet:

const options = {
    hosts: {
        domain: 'jitsi-meet.example.com',
        muc: 'conference.jitsi-meet.example.com'
    },
    bosh: '//jitsi-meet.example.com/http-bind'
};
const connection = new JitsiMeetJS.JitsiConnection(null, null, options);

RTCMultiConnection:

const connection = new RTCMultiConnection();
connection.socketURL = 'https://rtcmulticonnection.herokuapp.com:443/';
connection.session = {
    audio: true,
    video: true
};
connection.openOrJoin('room-id');

Both libraries provide WebRTC functionality, but lib-jitsi-meet is more focused on video conferencing solutions, while RTCMultiConnection offers a broader range of WebRTC applications. lib-jitsi-meet is better suited for enterprise-level video conferencing, while RTCMultiConnection is more flexible for various WebRTC projects.

Pros of samples

• Provides a wide range of WebRTC examples and use cases
• Regularly updated with the latest WebRTC features and best practices
• Excellent learning resource for developers new to WebRTC

Cons of samples

• Not a full-featured library for building WebRTC applications
• Requires more custom implementation for complex use cases
• Less focused on multi-user conferencing scenarios

Code Comparison

samples (basic peer connection):

pc1 = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
pc2 = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
pc1.onicecandidate = e => !e.candidate || pc2.addIceCandidate(e.candidate);
pc2.onicecandidate = e => !e.candidate || pc1.addIceCandidate(e.candidate);
pc2.ontrack = e => remoteVideo.srcObject = e.streams[0];

lib-jitsi-meet (creating a conference):

const connection = new JitsiConnection(options);
const conference = connection.initJitsiConference(roomName, confOptions);
conference.on(JitsiConferenceEvents.TRACK_ADDED, onRemoteTrack);
conference.join();

Summary

While samples offers a broad range of WebRTC examples and is great for learning, lib-jitsi-meet provides a more comprehensive solution for building multi-user video conferencing applications. samples is ideal for understanding WebRTC concepts, while lib-jitsi-meet offers a higher-level API for quickly implementing complex conferencing features.

Pros of coturn

• Standalone TURN server implementation, offering more flexibility for various WebRTC applications
• Supports multiple protocols (TURN, STUN, ICE) and transport methods (UDP, TCP, TLS)
• Highly configurable with extensive options for security and performance tuning

Cons of coturn

• Requires separate setup and maintenance as it's not integrated into a specific WebRTC framework
• May need additional configuration and integration work to use with other WebRTC solutions
• Less suitable for developers looking for an all-in-one WebRTC library solution

Code comparison

coturn configuration example:

listening-port=3478
listening-ip=0.0.0.0
external-ip=203.0.113.5
user=myuser:mypassword
realm=example.com

lib-jitsi-meet usage example:

const options = {
  hosts: {
    domain: 'meet.example.com',
    muc: 'conference.meet.example.com'
  },
  bosh: '//meet.example.com/http-bind'
};
const connection = new JitsiMeetJS.JitsiConnection(null, null, options);

While coturn provides a standalone TURN server solution, lib-jitsi-meet offers a comprehensive WebRTC library for building video conferencing applications. coturn is more flexible but requires additional setup, whereas lib-jitsi-meet provides an integrated solution specifically tailored for Jitsi-based applications.