30 Sep
2011
30 Sep
'11
11:38 a.m.
On 29.09.2011 17:30, Jason Penton wrote:
yeah, make sense. Ok, we will proceed exposing
fake_reply in tm and
start a new branch for everyone to review. Any tips on how to create a
branch using GIT? ;) - I'm paranoid of doing something wrong to git
master ;)
You simply need to push your changes to a new, non-existing remote
branch. This should do the trick:
git push origin <your local branch name>:<your git user name>/<new
remote branch name>
For instance,
git push origin master_dialog2:jpenton/dialog2
When I did it for the first time I got weird permission errors; this was
because I didn't use my correct git user name, so watch out for that.
Cheers,
--Timo
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Timo Reimann
<timo.reimann(a)1und1.de
<mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>> wrote:
Hey Jason,
On 29.09.2011 16:54, Jason Penton wrote:
early dialog
(http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/modules-new-design:dialog-module-…),
sending a
CANCEL
reply
via
at a given
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(a)1und1.de <mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>
<mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de
<mailto:timo.reimann@1und1.de>>> wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 29.09.2011 16:06, Jason Penton wrote:
the
dialog2
Ok Dialog2 progressing nicely. We now have
dialogs and their
associated
> out dialogs (branches / forking) stored and managed within 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
termination, but we are concerned with the way it has been done.
Basically as mentioned in the wiki
>
>
> *
> 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
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 > 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
tm is
not
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 > 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 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