Hi Daniel,
agree, in this case i think $subs(...) or $sub(...) would make more sense,
$subs(presententy)
$subs(state)
thoughts?
________________________________
From: sr-dev [sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org] on behalf of Daniel-Constantin Mierla
[miconda(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:54 AM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] new pv for presence subscriptions
Hello,
it is ok, but I would go to create a new class of variables, because more can be needed in
the future from presence details.
I think you can go for $pres(uri) for this case, which will allow other $pres(xyz) in the
future.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 23/03/15 13:26, Luis Azedo wrote:
Hi,
we would like to add a new pv $presentity (or better name) to be set on presence
handle_subscribe.
the reason for this is that we need the presentity of the subscription to carry on further
tasks in the script and the To header not always carries the right information on
re-subscriptions.
handle_subscribe will take the presentity from Request-URI if no to-tag is sent or it will
take it from hash/db if to-tag is present.
is that ok to proceed with implementation ?
Best
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org<mailto:sr-dev@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
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany -
http://www.kamailioworld.com