On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Timo Reimann <timo.reimann@1und1.de> wrote:

Hey Jason,

On 29.09.2011 16:54, Jason Penton wrote:
> Awesome, thanks Timo. However, The example you give here is to store
> dlg_cell in transaction. Actually, we are using the reverse, se pseudo
> code below:
>
> when INVITE req_forwarded callback is called, create dialog_in
> structure, link and store pointer to transaction in dlg_cell
> if we get a request to terminate dialog that is unconfirmed we get the
> transaction ptr from dlg_cell and traverse through branches, sending
> fake_reply (480/408/x).

Dialogs aren't stored in transactions, they are stored (hackishly) in
transaction callbacks (better: attached to them). But anyways, I think
the uses-relationships are similar in both cases: The dialog module is
called and needs to refer to its transaction. The current module's
pseudo-code:

"When INVITE on_create callback is called: create dialog structure, link
and store pointer to transaction in tm callback.
If we a response, fetch the transaction ptr from the tm callback to
allow access to dialog variables."

AFAICS, all that differs is the location of the transaction pointer
which is currently stored in a tm callback (bad) while you use the
dialog structure (good). Let me know if I get things wrong.

Cheers,

--Timo

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Timo Reimann <timo.reimann@1und1.de

> <mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On 29.09.2011 16:06, Jason Penton wrote:
> > Ok Dialog2 progressing nicely. We now have dialogs and their
> associated
> > out dialogs (branches / forking) stored and managed within the dialog2
> > module. For the moment, we have excluded DB support but will add
> once we
> > check in to git. One thing we need a little assistance with:
> >
> > We have just finished the prototype for proxy initiated early dialog
> > termination, but we are concerned with the way it has been done.
> > Basically as mentioned in the wiki
> >
> (http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/modules-new-design:dialog-module-design),
> >
> >
> > *
> > It should be possible to terminate dialogs in the “early” state,
> > i.e., sending out BYE/CANCEL requests in order to terminate all
> > branches appropriately.
> > o
> > ibc: IMHO it would be easier just to cancel the
> transaction
> > as when fr_inv_timer expires, this is, by sending a CANCEL
> > to all the pending branches and a 408 to the UAC
> (perhaps in
> > this case a 480 would be more appropriate).
> >
> > The only way we could think of doing this was to send a fake reply via
> > the TM module. We have therefore exposed the fake_reply function from
> > the TM module and using that to terminate early dialogs. It works
> in the
> > test scenarios we have performed, but the main drawback we can see
> here
> > is that the dialog module needs to hold a pointer to the
> transaction for
> > each dialog (not sure how bad this is as my experience with tm is not
> > expert yet ;) )
> >
> > So any thoughts/ideas. Is this the correct way to do it? Would it be
> > okay to expose a fake_reply function through TM API?
>
> I cannot comment on how good or bad it is to expose the fake_reply
> function.
>
> Regarding pointing each dialog to its associated transaction at a given
> time: This is already implemented in the current dialog(1) module. It
> was needed for several reasons, one of them being to allow access to
> dialog variables in responses. The way the link between dialogs and
> transactions is done is by attaching a transaction pointer to the
> TMCB_MAX callback which is fetched when required. Look at
> store_dlg_in_tm() in dlg_handlers.c and get_dialog_from_tm() in
> dlg_profile.c.
>
> Yes, abusing TMCB_MAX to store additional data is kinda hackish. The
> point here is that the dialog/transaction linkage is definitely needed,
> so IMHO you may go ahead and re-establish it in dialog2. Finding a
> cleaner implementation approach that doesn't involve TMCB_MAX is highly
> appreciated though.
>
>
> HTH,
>
> --Timo