2 okt 2013 kl. 17:19 skrev Robert Boisvert <rdboisvert(a)gmail.com>om>:
All,
These are good comments and very helpful. In response, …
The naming decision came up early in the design process and I concluded that queue is too
generic. I thought of “callqueue” but decided against it since there are many ways to put
calls into queues and I didn’t want to conflict with future modules which might have their
own “call queues”. I used “mohqueue” because it is concise and hopefully makes the
function more apparent. I could call it “MOHqueue” if that makes the “MOH” part stand out
more.
No camelcase in module names, please.
Using the payload number was not my choice but is the
way Sippy RTPproxy works. Like others,
(
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-July/069391.html) I found this out by
going directly into the source code. If I am wrong in this conclusion, please help me get
it right.
It is still wrong and not very future-safe. Please add a conversion table.
What's the state with rtpproxy-ng? Still using old payload numbers?
Being able to choose a specific call out of queue is
very flexible, but under what circumstances would this feature be useful?
It's just an idea. Many users have implemented this in UIs to Asterisk call
queues. It's quite often a requirement.
xavp is a useful extension and something to consider
for the future. I was in a hurry to meet deadlines so I chose what worked best in the
current environment.
Can understand that. Just a suggestion too.
I will adjust the comment about request routes. I appreciate the help with documentation
since it is just as important as the code.
That's the spirit!!!
Good work, Bob!
/O
Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
---
* Olle E Johansson - oej(a)edvina.net
* Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden