Hi Daniel,
For Asserted and preferred identities, we don't need to parse the content, but in other headers I have not gotten to yet, we may need to.
Please help me understand, I would have thought from an architecture perspective, we would populate the sip_msg structure with all possible sip headers as well as the parsers. What is the reason we don't do this currently? performance?
Cheers Jason
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
do not forget that we have internal libraries, if you have code shared by several modules but it is not for general interest to be stored in core. It is better than using defines, IMO. Users take usually what is given by default, it is rarely when people compile with different flags and providing a feature that requires this will make testing harder and adoption slower.
For example, even now there are some parser extensions in lib/kcore/ (which I plan to move to core, btw, since there were left there by the integration process).
Just a clarification for myself, I guess you mean parsing the content of IMS specific headers, since there is a generic parser for any kind of header, that will give the header name and body.
Cheers, Daniel
On 11/2/11 4:31 PM, Jason Penton wrote:
Hey Ovidiu
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Ovidiu Sas osas@voipembedded.com wrote:
If the headers must be accessible by several modules, then it would make sense to have them into existing framework. One option would be to enable some compile flags and compile that code only for IMS (similar to FLAVOUR - we could add a new flavour)
don't know if I would go so far as to call it another 'flavour' (semantically), but yes compile flags may be the way to go......
Regards, Ovidiu Sas
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jason Penton jason.penton@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I wanted to ask the community what the best way forward is for
incorporating
new SIP (IMS specific) headers into Kamailio. Right now I see two ways:
- incorporating into existing parser framework in Kamailio
- Leave it up to individual modules to independently parse for
appropriate
IMS headers. I would think 1 would be the best option? Here are some examples of the extension headers:
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/JBoss_Communications_Platform/5.0/html/SIP...
Cheers Jason _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
sr-dev mailing listsr-dev@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com Kamailio Advanced Training, Dec 5-8, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kathttp://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda