Pros of webrtc

• More comprehensive WebRTC implementation, offering broader functionality beyond screen sharing
• Higher flexibility for custom WebRTC applications and use cases
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of webrtc

• Steeper learning curve due to its more extensive API and features
• Requires more setup and configuration for specific use cases like screen sharing
• May have higher resource usage for simpler applications

Code Comparison

webrtc:

peerConnection, err := webrtc.NewPeerConnection(webrtc.Configuration{
    ICEServers: []webrtc.ICEServer{
        {
            URLs: []string{"stun:stun.l.google.com:19302"},
        },
    },
})

server:

room, err := s.rooms.Create(roomName, password, screensharer, s.turnServer)
if err != nil {
    return nil, status.Error(codes.Internal, err.Error())
}

The webrtc code snippet shows the creation of a peer connection with ICE server configuration, while the server code demonstrates room creation with a turn server. This highlights the difference in abstraction levels, with server providing higher-level functionality specific to screen sharing, and webrtc offering lower-level WebRTC primitives.

Pros of coturn

• More comprehensive TURN/STUN server with broader protocol support
• Highly configurable with extensive options for customization
• Widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments

Cons of coturn

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers to TURN/STUN technologies

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

screego configuration example:

turn:
  public_ip: 203.0.113.10
  port_range:
    start: 50000
    end: 50100

Summary

coturn is a more feature-rich and flexible TURN/STUN server solution, suitable for complex deployments and advanced use cases. It offers extensive configuration options but requires more expertise to set up and manage.

screego, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more focused solution for screen sharing and collaboration. It's easier to set up and use, making it a good choice for projects that don't require the full range of TURN/STUN features.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, the level of customization needed, and the available resources for deployment and maintenance.

Pros of Jitsi Meet

• More comprehensive video conferencing solution with features like chat, screen sharing, and recording
• Larger community and more active development, with frequent updates and improvements
• Supports mobile platforms (iOS and Android) in addition to web browsers

Cons of Jitsi Meet

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Screego
• Higher resource requirements due to its broader feature set
• May be overkill for simple screen sharing use cases

Code Comparison

Jitsi Meet (JavaScript):

import { createLocalTracks } from 'lib-jitsi-meet';

const localTracks = await createLocalTracks({ devices: ['audio', 'video'] });
conference.addTrack(localTracks[0]);
conference.addTrack(localTracks[1]);

Screego (Go):

func (r *RoomManager) Create(opts RoomOptions) (string, error) {
    room := NewRoom(opts)
    r.rooms[room.ID] = room
    return room.ID, nil
}

The code snippets highlight the different approaches:

• Jitsi Meet focuses on creating and managing media tracks for video conferencing
• Screego emphasizes simplicity in room creation and management for screen sharing

Both projects serve different purposes, with Jitsi Meet offering a full-featured video conferencing solution and Screego providing a lightweight screen sharing alternative.

Pros of PeerJS

• Simpler to use for basic peer-to-peer connections
• Provides a higher-level abstraction for WebRTC
• Better suited for small to medium-scale projects

Cons of PeerJS

• Less control over low-level WebRTC configurations
• May not scale as well for large-scale applications
• Limited built-in features compared to server

Code Comparison

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer();
peer.on('open', (id) => {
  console.log('My peer ID is: ' + id);
});

server:

server := screego.New(screego.Config{
    Rooms: screego.RoomConfig{
        MaxSize: 4,
    },
})
server.Start()

Key Differences

• PeerJS focuses on simplifying WebRTC peer connections, while server provides a more comprehensive screen sharing solution
• server is written in Go, offering potential performance benefits for large-scale deployments
• PeerJS is more suitable for general peer-to-peer communication, whereas server specializes in screen sharing functionality

Use Cases

• Choose PeerJS for quick implementation of basic peer-to-peer connections in web applications
• Opt for server when building a robust, scalable screen sharing platform with more advanced features

Community and Support

• PeerJS has a larger community and more resources available for beginners
• server offers more specialized support for screen sharing applications

Pros of samples

• Comprehensive collection of WebRTC examples covering various 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 ready-to-use solution for screen sharing or remote desktop
• Requires more setup and integration work to build a complete application
• May be overwhelming for developers looking for a specific implementation

Code Comparison

samples (JavaScript):

const peerConnection = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
const dataChannel = peerConnection.createDataChannel("myChannel");

dataChannel.onmessage = (event) => {
  console.log("Received:", event.data);
};

server (Go):

func (r *Room) AddClient(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
    client := NewClient(r, w, req)
    r.clients[client.ID] = client
    defer r.RemoveClient(client)
    client.ReadLoop()
}

Summary

samples provides a wide range of WebRTC examples and is an excellent learning resource, while server is a more focused solution for screen sharing. samples offers greater flexibility but requires more integration work, whereas server provides a ready-to-use implementation for specific use cases. The code comparison highlights the different languages and approaches used in each project.

Pros of RTCMultiConnection

• More comprehensive WebRTC solution with support for audio/video conferencing, screen sharing, and file transfer
• Extensive documentation and examples for various use cases
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of RTCMultiConnection

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May be overkill for simple screen sharing applications
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Server

Code Comparison

RTCMultiConnection:

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

Server:

s := screego.New(screego.Config{
    Addr: ":5050",
    Turn: screego.TurnConfig{
        Secret: "mysecret",
    },
})
s.Start()

RTCMultiConnection offers a more feature-rich API for various WebRTC functionalities, while Server provides a simpler, focused solution for screen sharing. RTCMultiConnection requires more client-side JavaScript setup, whereas Server emphasizes server-side configuration in Go.