Pros of WebRTC Samples

• Comprehensive collection of WebRTC examples covering various use cases
• Regularly updated with the latest WebRTC features and best practices
• Maintained by the official WebRTC project, ensuring high-quality and accurate implementations

Cons of WebRTC Samples

• Focuses on raw WebRTC implementation, requiring more setup and configuration
• Steeper learning curve for beginners compared to PeerJS's simplified API
• Lacks built-in signaling and connection management features

Code Comparison

WebRTC Samples (raw WebRTC):

const peerConnection = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
peerConnection.addTrack(videoTrack, stream);
const offer = await peerConnection.createOffer();
await peerConnection.setLocalDescription(offer);

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer();
const call = peer.call('remote-peer-id', stream);
call.on('stream', (remoteStream) => {
  // Handle remote stream
});

PeerJS simplifies the connection process with a higher-level API, while WebRTC Samples demonstrates raw WebRTC implementation, offering more control but requiring more code.

Pros of simple-peer

• Lightweight and focused solely on WebRTC data channel functionality
• Easier to integrate into existing projects due to its simplicity
• More actively maintained with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of simple-peer

• Lacks built-in signaling server functionality
• Does not provide as many high-level abstractions as PeerJS
• May require more manual configuration for complex use cases

Code Comparison

simple-peer:

const peer = new SimplePeer({ initiator: true })
peer.on('signal', data => {
  // send signal data to peer
})
peer.on('data', data => {
  console.log('Received data:', data)
})

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer()
const conn = peer.connect('peer-id')
conn.on('open', () => {
  conn.send('Hello!')
})
conn.on('data', data => {
  console.log('Received data:', data)
})

Both libraries provide similar functionality for peer-to-peer communication, but simple-peer focuses on lower-level WebRTC operations, while PeerJS offers a higher-level abstraction with built-in signaling and connection management. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of control you need over the WebRTC implementation.

Pros of WebRTC-Experiment

• More comprehensive set of WebRTC demos and examples
• Includes additional features like screen sharing and audio/video recording
• Offers a wider range of WebRTC-related utilities and helper functions

Cons of WebRTC-Experiment

• Less focused on peer-to-peer networking compared to PeerJS
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its broader scope
• Not as actively maintained as PeerJS (last update was in 2021)

Code Comparison

WebRTC-Experiment:

connection.openOrJoin('room-id', function(isRoomCreated, roomid, error) {
    if (error) {
        console.error(error);
    }
    else {
        console.log('Connected to room:', roomid);
    }
});

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer();
peer.on('open', (id) => {
    const conn = peer.connect('remote-peer-id');
    conn.on('open', () => {
        conn.send('Hello!');
    });
});

Both libraries provide abstractions for WebRTC connections, but PeerJS focuses more on simple peer-to-peer networking, while WebRTC-Experiment offers a broader range of WebRTC functionalities. PeerJS may be more suitable for straightforward P2P applications, while WebRTC-Experiment could be better for complex WebRTC projects requiring additional features.

Pros of AppRTC

• More comprehensive WebRTC implementation with additional features
• Better suited for complex, multi-user applications
• Includes server-side components for signaling and TURN functionality

Cons of AppRTC

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Requires more setup and infrastructure compared to PeerJS
• Less suitable for simple peer-to-peer applications

Code Comparison

AppRTC (JavaScript):

var startTime = window.performance.now();
var call = new Call(config_);
call.start(roomId);
this.call_ = call;

call.onlocalstreamadded = this.onLocalStreamAdded_.bind(this);

PeerJS (JavaScript):

const peer = new Peer();
peer.on('open', (id) => {
  const conn = peer.connect('destination-peer-id');
  conn.on('open', () => {
    conn.send('Hello!');
  });
});

AppRTC provides a more comprehensive setup for WebRTC calls, including room management and additional event handling. PeerJS offers a simpler API for basic peer-to-peer connections, making it easier to get started with WebRTC functionality in smaller projects.

Both libraries serve different use cases, with AppRTC being more suitable for complex, multi-user applications, while PeerJS excels in simplicity for basic peer-to-peer communication scenarios.

Pros of coturn

• More comprehensive TURN/STUN server implementation
• Supports a wider range of protocols and features
• Better suited for large-scale deployments and enterprise use cases

Cons of coturn

• More complex setup and configuration
• Requires more server resources to run
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code comparison

coturn (configuration example):

listening-port=3478
listening-ip=0.0.0.0
relay-ip=0.0.0.0
external-ip=203.0.113.10
realm=example.com

peerjs (client-side usage):

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

Summary

coturn is a full-featured TURN/STUN server implementation, offering extensive functionality and scalability for WebRTC applications. It's ideal for large-scale deployments but requires more setup and resources.

peerjs, on the other hand, is a simpler peer-to-peer WebRTC library focused on ease of use for developers. It abstracts away much of the complexity of WebRTC connections but may not be as suitable for complex or large-scale scenarios.

Choose coturn for robust, scalable TURN/STUN server needs, and peerjs for quick, easy peer-to-peer WebRTC implementations in JavaScript applications.

Pros of Jitsi Meet

• Full-featured video conferencing solution with a complete UI
• Supports large-scale meetings and advanced features like screen sharing
• Active development with frequent updates and a large community

Cons of Jitsi Meet

• More complex setup and deployment compared to PeerJS
• Heavier resource usage due to its comprehensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to WebRTC

Code Comparison

Jitsi Meet (JavaScript):

const options = {
    roomName: 'MyConferenceRoom',
    width: 700,
    height: 700,
    parentNode: document.querySelector('#meet')
};
const api = new JitsiMeetExternalAPI(domain, options);

PeerJS (JavaScript):

const peer = new Peer();
const conn = peer.connect('another-peers-id');
conn.on('open', () => {
    conn.send('Hello!');
});

Jitsi Meet provides a higher-level API for creating video conferences, while PeerJS offers a more low-level approach for peer-to-peer connections. Jitsi Meet is better suited for full-featured video conferencing applications, whereas PeerJS is ideal for simpler peer-to-peer communication scenarios or as a building block for custom WebRTC applications.