Pros of Jitsi Meet

• More feature-rich, including screen sharing, recording, and chat functionality
• Active development with frequent updates and community support
• Scalable for larger deployments and enterprise use cases

Cons of Jitsi Meet

• More complex setup and configuration compared to AppRTC
• Higher resource requirements due to additional features

Code Comparison

AppRTC (JavaScript):

var startTime = window.performance.now();
call.pc1.createOffer(offerOptions)
  .then(function(desc) {
    return call.pc1.setLocalDescription(desc);
  })
  .then(function() {
    trace('Offer from pc1\n' + call.pc1.localDescription.sdp);
    return call.pc2.setRemoteDescription(call.pc1.localDescription);
  })

Jitsi Meet (JavaScript):

const options = {
    hosts: {
        domain: 'jitsi-meet.example.com',
        muc: 'conference.jitsi-meet.example.com'
    },
    bosh: 'https://jitsi-meet.example.com/http-bind',
    clientNode: 'http://jitsi.org/jitsimeet'
};
const confOptions = {
    openBridgeChannel: true
};
const connection = new JitsiMeetJS.JitsiConnection(null, null, options);
connection.addEventListener(JitsiMeetJS.events.connection.CONNECTION_ESTABLISHED, onConnectionSuccess);
connection.connect();

Pros of WebRTC-Experiment

• More extensive collection of WebRTC demos and examples
• Simpler setup and easier to get started quickly
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of WebRTC-Experiment

• Less focus on a single, polished application
• May lack some advanced features present in AppRTC
• Documentation could be more comprehensive

Code Comparison

AppRTC (Python):

def get_room_parameters(request, room_id, client_id, is_initiator):
    params = {}
    params['room_id'] = room_id
    params['client_id'] = client_id
    params['is_initiator'] = is_initiator
    return params

WebRTC-Experiment (JavaScript):

function getRoom(roomid) {
    var room = {
        roomId: roomid,
        participants: {},
        isRoomFull: function() {
            return Object.keys(this.participants).length >= 2;
        }
    };
    return room;
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling room parameters. AppRTC uses a Python function to create a dictionary of room parameters, while WebRTC-Experiment uses a JavaScript function to create a room object with methods for managing participants.

Pros of PeerJS

• Simpler API and easier to use for beginners
• Lightweight and focused solely on peer-to-peer connections
• Better documentation and examples for quick implementation

Cons of PeerJS

• Less flexible for complex WebRTC scenarios
• Relies on PeerServer for signaling, which may introduce limitations
• Smaller community and fewer updates compared to AppRTC

Code Comparison

AppRTC (JavaScript):

var pc = new RTCPeerConnection(pcConfig);
pc.onicecandidate = function(event) {
  if (event.candidate) {
    sendMessage({type: 'candidate', label: event.candidate.sdpMLineIndex,
        id: event.candidate.sdpMid, candidate: event.candidate.candidate});
  }
};

PeerJS (JavaScript):

var peer = new Peer();
peer.on('open', function(id) {
  console.log('My peer ID is: ' + id);
});
peer.on('connection', function(conn) {
  conn.on('data', function(data) {
    console.log('Received', data);
  });
});

The AppRTC code shows lower-level WebRTC implementation, while PeerJS abstracts much of this complexity away, providing a simpler interface for peer-to-peer connections.

Pros of simple-peer

• Lightweight and easy to use, with a simple API
• Works in both Node.js and the browser
• Supports data channels and media streams

Cons of simple-peer

• Less comprehensive than AppRTC, focusing mainly on peer connections
• May require additional setup for signaling and STUN/TURN servers
• Limited built-in features compared to AppRTC's full-stack approach

Code Comparison

AppRTC (Java):

public class PeerConnectionClient {
    private void createPeerConnection() {
        PeerConnection.RTCConfiguration rtcConfig = new PeerConnection.RTCConfiguration(iceServers);
        peerConnection = factory.createPeerConnection(rtcConfig, pcObserver);
    }
}

simple-peer (JavaScript):

const peer = new SimplePeer({
  initiator: true,
  trickle: false,
  config: { iceServers: [{ urls: 'stun:stun.l.google.com:19302' }] }
})

AppRTC provides a more comprehensive WebRTC implementation with additional features and a full-stack approach, while simple-peer offers a lightweight and easy-to-use solution for basic WebRTC peer connections. AppRTC may be better suited for complex applications, while simple-peer is ideal for simpler use cases or rapid prototyping.

Pros of Janus-gateway

• More versatile: Supports multiple protocols (WebRTC, RTMP, SIP) and use cases (video conferencing, streaming, SFU)
• Highly scalable: Designed for large-scale deployments and high concurrency
• Extensive plugin system: Allows for easy customization and extension of functionality

Cons of Janus-gateway

• Steeper learning curve: More complex architecture and configuration compared to AppRTC
• Higher resource requirements: May require more server resources due to its comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

AppRTC (JavaScript):

var pcConfig = {
  'iceServers': [{
    'urls': 'stun:stun.l.google.com:19302'
  }]
};

Janus-gateway (C):

janus_ice_stream *stream = handle->stream;
if(stream == NULL) {
    JANUS_LOG(LOG_ERR, "[%"SCNu64"] No stream!!\n", handle->handle_id);
    return;
}

Both projects use different programming languages and architectures. AppRTC focuses on a simple WebRTC implementation, while Janus-gateway offers a more comprehensive and flexible approach to real-time communication.

Pros of mediasoup

• Designed for scalability and performance, suitable for large-scale deployments
• Offers more flexibility and control over media routing and processing
• Supports advanced features like simulcast and SVC

Cons of mediasoup

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to AppRTC
• Less suitable for simple, quick WebRTC implementations

Code Comparison

AppRTC (JavaScript):

var pc = new RTCPeerConnection(pcConfig);
pc.onicecandidate = function(event) {
  if (event.candidate) {
    sendMessage({type: 'candidate', label: event.candidate.sdpMLineIndex,
        id: event.candidate.sdpMid, candidate: event.candidate.candidate});
  }
};

mediasoup (JavaScript):

const router = await mediasoupWorker.createRouter({ mediaCodecs });
const transport = await router.createWebRtcTransport({
  listenIps: [{ ip: '0.0.0.0', announcedIp: null }],
  enableUdp: true,
  enableTcp: true,
  preferUdp: true,
});

The code snippets illustrate the difference in complexity and control. AppRTC uses a more straightforward approach with standard WebRTC APIs, while mediasoup provides lower-level control over transport creation and routing.