git:master: modules:carrierroute Fix documentation when using cr_route/ t_relay in failure routes
30 Sep
2010
30 Sep
'10
4:06 p.m.
Module: sip-router
Branch: master
Commit: c44529a8078f7c58d621e5116757da10084180f1
URL:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=c44529a…
Author: Marius Zbihlei <marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>
Committer: Marius Zbihlei <marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>
Date: Thu Sep 30 17:04:00 2010 +0300
modules:carrierroute Fix documentation when using cr_route/t_relay in failure routes
Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to call append_branch in failure routes
before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
---
modules/carrierroute/README | 69 +++++++++++------------
modules/carrierroute/doc/carrierroute_admin.xml | 6 +-
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
Diff:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commitdiff;h=c44…
1 Oct
1 Oct
10:10 a.m.
2010/9/30 Marius Zbihlei <marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to call
append_branch in failure routes
before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
Hi, and what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Thanks.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
10:28 a.m.
On 10/01/2010 11:10 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/9/30 Marius
Zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical
branches will be created.
Marius
Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to
call append_branch in failure routes
before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
Hi, and what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Thanks.
11:25 a.m.
2010/10/1 marius zbihlei <marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Thanks a lot.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Hi, and what
does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical branches
will be created. 
11:29 a.m.
On 10/1/10 11:25 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/10/1 marius
zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Thanks a lot.
in 3.0 the auto-detection of new uri is not
available, only in devel (3.1).
Cheers,
Daniel
Hi, and
what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical branches
will be created. 
11:30 a.m.
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:28, marius zbihlei <marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro> wrote:
On 10/01/2010 11:10 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Actually with 3.0 you still need append_branch() after changing RURI.
With latest 3.1 nothing will happen (if you call it after changing RURI
it won't add an extra branch).
Andrei
2010/9/30 Marius
Zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical
branches will be created. Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to
call append_branch in failure routes
before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
Hi, and
what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Thanks.
11:45 a.m.
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:30, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote:
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:28, marius zbihlei
<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro> wrote:
One more clarification: the r-ruri change autodetection (3.1) works
in all routes, not only in failure routes.
E.g., if I have in the main route:
t_relay();
setuser("foo1");
t_relay();
setuser("foo2);
t_relay();
3 branches will be created: 1 for the original uri, one for foo1@ and
the last one for foo2@.
Andrei
On 10/01/2010 11:10 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo
wrote:
Actually with 3.0 you still need append_branch() after changing RURI.
With latest 3.1 nothing will happen (if you call it after changing RURI
it won't add an extra branch). 2010/9/30 Marius
Zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical
branches will be created. Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to
call append_branch in failure routes
before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
Hi, and
what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Thanks.
11:49 a.m.
2010/10/1 Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei(a)iptel.org>rg>:
One more clarification: the r-ruri change
autodetection (3.1) works
in all routes, not only in failure routes.
E.g., if I have in the main route:
t_relay();
setuser("foo1");
t_relay();
setuser("foo2);
t_relay();
3 branches will be created: 1 for the original uri, one for foo1@ and
the last one for foo2@.
Then the meaning of append_branch is confusing, it seems that with
this new changes it's not needed at all so, what about removing it?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
1:09 p.m.
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:49, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
2010/10/1 Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
<andrei(a)iptel.org>rg>:
You can still add a branch without changing the uri:
append_branch("sip:foo@bar").
You can use it to create a duplicate branch (though I admit I don't know
what would this be usefull for), e.g.:
setuser("foo");
append_branch(); # this does nothing
append_branch(); # this will add a duplicate branch (same uri)
A more valid use, is to add branches first, and calling t_relay() only
once at the end (classical parallel forking), e.g.:
append_branch();
setuser("foo1");
append_branch();
setuser("foo2");
append_branch();
t_relay();
is equivalent with the first example.
Andrei
One more clarification: the r-ruri change
autodetection (3.1) works
in all routes, not only in failure routes.
E.g., if I have in the main route:
t_relay();
setuser("foo1");
t_relay();
setuser("foo2);
t_relay();
3 branches will be created: 1 for the original uri, one for foo1@ and
the last one for foo2@.
Then the meaning of append_branch is confusing, it seems that with
this new changes it's not needed at all so, what about removing it?
1:34 p.m.
2010/10/1 Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei(a)iptel.org>rg>:
A more valid use, is to add branches first, and
calling t_relay() only
once at the end (classical parallel forking), e.g.:
append_branch();
setuser("foo1");
append_branch();
setuser("foo2");
append_branch();
t_relay();
I missed this obvius feature for which, of course, the classic
append_branch() is the most expected solution :)
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
11:49 a.m.
On 10/01/2010 12:45 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:30, Andrei
Pelinescu-Onciul<andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote:
Hello
Ah, so 3.0 is not affected, only master and upcoming 3.1. Thanks for
clearing things up, because I didn't had the time to test with 3.0 and I
only relied on the exchanged emails.
Marius
On Oct 01, 2010 at 11:28, marius
zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro> wrote:
One more clarification: the r-ruri change autodetection (3.1) works
in all routes, not only in failure routes.
E.g., if I have in the main route:
t_relay();
setuser("foo1");
t_relay();
setuser("foo2);
t_relay();
3 branches will be created: 1 for the original uri, one for foo1@ and
the last one for foo2@.
Andrei
On 10/01/2010 11:10 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo
wrote:
Actually with 3.0 you still need append_branch() after changing RURI.
With latest 3.1 nothing will happen (if you call it after changing RURI
it won't add an extra branch).
2010/9/30 Marius
Zbihlei<marius.zbihlei(a)1and1.ro>ro>:
> Starting with 3.0 version, there is no need to call append_branch in failure routes
> before t_relay if the RURI is new(it is done automatically from t_relay).
>
Hi, and what does happen if append_branch() is called anyway?
Thanks.
Hello Iñaki,
Check this thread for the reasoning
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-September/009144.html
It depends on patched version, but I think with 3.0, 2 identical
branches will be created.
4957
days inactive
4958
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Marius Zbihlei