9 Aug
2012
9 Aug
'12
5:03 p.m.
9 aug 2012 kl. 16:00 skrev Peter Dunkley:
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 10:10 +0200, Martin Hoffmann
wrote:
I am not in favour of a new module. Like GRUU, this is just optional behaviour based on
the signalling....
/O
I'd prefer if we could do this through config
and only enhance the C
APIs where needed. With the new include logics and whatnot, this can
come in the form of a config library.
You can do includes but you can't put complex functions with parameters into
a config library. So you would end up having to do it as routes with pseudo-variables to
pass data around. I think this would be very messy for something as complex as Outbound -
and there is always the chance you might use a route-name or variable name that someone
else has (making it hard for them to add Outbound support to an existing configuration).
A lot of the business logic for Outbound will be done in the configuration anyway
(failure-routes to generate/convert status to 430 and so on) mainly because this is right
place for that stuff, but surely a new module that has drop-in replacements for existing
functions (like record_route(), loose_route(), lookup() and so on) is going to be easier
for people to work with?
Or have I misunderstood?