12 Aug
2011
12 Aug
'11
9:14 a.m.
Hey Timo
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Timo Reimann <timo.reimann(a)1und1.de> wrote:
correct, but dont forget in the IMS case the bearer will be torn down in
which case the 'client' wont be able to send or receive RTP ;)
the dialog callbacks work great for Dialog initiated events, but not so
nicely when you have triggers/events coming from other stimuli and in which
you no longer have access to the appropriate information.
I think at a minimum it may be a good thing to expose terminate_dlg at C
level API afterall you would think that this would be a natural sort of
function to expose. As far as the others are concerned lets see if we can
work around.
One other thing we were thinking of is adding a rivet gun framework to the
dialog module. Here you could effectively added meta information to a dialog
through the callbacks for module specific (dialog-relayed) information. So
in essence you can think of attaching nuggets of information (rivets) to the
dialog in the form a void*. the modules could then also possible pass a
code/decode function for the void* to the appropriate information for that
module (more like a serialiser/deserialiser actually).
I think this could also add some nice value as it will prevent modules
having to store extra references in their own code to map data to a dialog.
p.s. thanks for you indepth look into this and your valuable comments
Cheers
Jason
Hey Jason,
On 12.08.2011 13:50, Jason Penton wrote:
yes, we do this already, BUT we need a link to a dialog that can be used
"outside" of the callbacks. For example. Lets take the Rx interface. We
could get a message from the network saying there is a problem on the
bearer, static the PCC sessions affected. In this case:
a) we need to find the associated / affected dialogs
b) terminate them
Ok, I agree with you on the reference counting -
this can be avoided by
keeping the h_entry:h_id pair instead of a pointer to dlg. The reason I
was doing the ref was to make sure that the dialog module does not
delete a dialog under a modules feet (in which case a module would hold
a pointer to memory that has been freed). However, to avoid this we can
just call lookup_dlg passing in the entry:id pair. (another reason why
we would need lookup_dlg to be exposed ;)
A much easier approach IMHO would be to register a callback to
DLGCB_DESTROY or DLGCB_TERMINATE. That way, you'll be notified
automatically when the dialog is destroyed/terminated and don't need to
deal with implementation details such as hash table keys.
You could also use other dialog callbacks to react to specific dialog
lifetime phases. See the docs for details.
If we just use as one example the Ro interface we
have built.
Effectivley Ro is used in the IMS world for online charging (i.e.
realtime charing during the call). So naturally, this module is dialog
aware. What we do is keep a mapping between the dialog and the
particular Ro session (Ro session exists between Kamailio and an OCS
(online charging system). This is the reason for storing the dialog
pointer or id pairs. Now, when we run out of credit - the OCS will deny
a new batch of requested credit. In this case we lookup the
corresponding dialog associated to the Ro session and tear it down,
using terminate_dlg function
If you really need to terminate calls proxy-wise, I agree you need some
terminate function. It's usefulness might be restricted in your case as
mischievious clients may just ignore your BYE request. I don't know your
exact setup, however, so this objection might not count.
Assuming that it holds I think dialog callbacks, again, are the way to
hook into the dialog module. Just keep registering for new dialogs
(possibly "confirmed" ones only) and make your module logic keep track
of credits during the course of the call. Should the account drop to
zero while the dialog is still active, force termination.
Termination, by the way, could also be implemented by letting your
module run a particular Kamailio route on zero credits which, in turn,
could call dlg_end_dlg(). That way, you wouldn't need to export another
function. I am not strictly against exporting the termination function
on C level though, just wanted to mention the route approach.
yes this is one of the options we did think about, BUT we thought that if
someone wanted to implement an Ro interface they may not want to have to
'configure' the config file to make it work properly and according to the
standard. but yest this still remains a good option.
I really think there are a number of scenarios
where these extended API
functions could be used so as to ensure modules don't have to replicate
what alrady exists in the dialog module, from both memory and processing
perspective.
I'd be interested to know whether all these scenarios can be covered by
means of using the dialog callbacks as they nicely isolate
implementation details from dialog usage. If there are cases where
callbacks don't suffice, we can think about ways to work around. In my
opinion, that should go by enhancing the callback mechanism accordingly.
Cheers,
--Timo
functions
of
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Timo Reimann
<timo.reimann(a)1und1.de
<mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>> wrote:
Hey Jason,
On 12.08.2011 12:54, Jason Penton wrote:
fiddle
this wont be available to configuration users but
to other modules
through API.
Ok, thanks for clarifying this. Still, allowing other modules to with referencing counting is a no-go IMHO.
wrote:
On phone now so will respond to use cases when
I'm back at my PC
Sounds good!
Cheers,
--Timo
On Aug 12, 2011 12:48 PM, "Timo
Reimann" <timo.reimann(a)1und1.de
<mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>
> <mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de <mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>>>
> Hey,
>
>
> On 12.08.2011 12:33, Jason Penton wrote:
>> We are currently refactoring and cleaning the various IMS
modules for
>>> inclusion into SR, diameter_rx, diameter_cxdx, diameter_ro, etc.
>>>
>>> One thing we have noticed is that the use of dialog module >>> would make the code alot better
and cleaner, so 2 questions:
>>>
>>> 1. why is the Dialog module not exposing more if its methods?
>>> 2. Can we put in a patch to expose the ones we require.
>>>
>>> Currently, we have exposed and are using the following:
>>>
>>> lookup_dlg;
>>> terminate_dlg;
>>> get_dlg;
>>> unref_dlg;
>>> ref_dlg;
>>
>> I strongly opt against exporting any functions related to
reference
>> management. It's already hard to
handle reference counting
properly
>> inside the module; allowing
configuration users to touch that part
of
> the
module will likely result in all kinds of ugly bugs. IMHO,
it's best
> to keep it internal and provide functions to
whatever feature you
like.
>> There's already a bunch of dialog PVs and (more recently) the very
>> generic dialog variable mechanism which allows you to do a series things.
>
> Regarding the other functions you mentioned, can you outline what
your
>> use case for those is?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --Timo