17 Sep
2014
17 Sep
'14
6:47 a.m.
Hello,
the topic was discussed before a bit. My opinion was that with current
content in the module, the name is ok.
It is not a generic connector for a message queue, but has wrapper
functions that work on top of presence modules to exchange messages via
a message queue.
I think that the module can be eventually split in a generic
what-so-ever message queue, then kazoo stays only with the wrapper
functions needed to build messages and spread them to other kazoo
instances, binding internally to the new message queue module to use it
for sending/receiving.
But it is too late for 4.2 to start moving a lot of code around. Should
be a goal for the following major release.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 17/09/14 12:32, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Hi!
I am not sure I think Kazoo is a good name for the new module. It's a cool name, I
agree on that...
For databases we have a prefix of db_ and ndb_.
We can get more modules using other message systems - like the OpenWRT message bus or
OpenAIS (or even XMPP).
Maybe we should already set the name standard - mq_kazoo or mq_amqp ?
Yes I know I'm booooooring - but it makes some sort of sense.
If so, should we rename DMQ to mq_SIP ?
/O
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany