2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
8:38 a.m.
Hello,
some months ago (iirc) we had a discussion about the sip_msg structure
and the fact that it has too many header hooks, some for pretty uncommon
or not really used inside sip router code.
I spotted
- subject
- accept_language
- content_disposition
- accept_disposition
- unsupported
- organization
- diversion (expired draft?)
The list can continue a bit ... I was thinking to replace them with a
call of get_hdr_by_name|type() kind of function. The benefit will be
lower structure.
On the other hand, I would add a new field to hold the pid of the
process that received the message. There are some potential races by
using only id to identify a message, especially in serial forking.
Opinions?
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
eLearning class for Kamailio 3.0.0
Starting Feb 8, 2010
* http://www.asipto.com/
2 Feb
2 Feb
8:52 a.m.
On Feb 02, 2010 at 14:38, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
some months ago (iirc) we had a discussion about the sip_msg structure
and the fact that it has too many header hooks, some for pretty uncommon
or not really used inside sip router code.
I spotted
- subject
- accept_language
- content_disposition
- accept_disposition
- unsupported
- organization
- diversion (expired draft?)
The list can continue a bit ... I was thinking to replace them with a
call of get_hdr_by_name|type() kind of function. The benefit will be
lower structure.
On the other hand, I would add a new field to hold the pid of the
process that received the message. There are some potential races by
using only id to identify a message, especially in serial forking.
Opinions?
I fully agree. I've tried doing this before for ser, but hit very strong
opposition.
Regarding the pid, I was thinking on extending the msg->id field and
include the pid or process_no there.
E.g.:
struct msgid_str{
int msg_no; /* per process */
unsigned short reserved; /* future use (e.g. extending msg_no to 48
bits */
unsigned short proc_no; /* process number, 64k should be enough */
};
union msg_id{
struct msgid_str raw;
unsigned long long id;
}
typedef uninon msg_id msg_id_t;
Andrei
9:18 a.m.
On 2/2/10 2:52 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Feb 02, 2010 at 14:38, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
a common sip message has less than 20 headers, there are hooks for over
40 (not talking about IMS common cases, ok? :-) anyhow those are not
hooked).
Hello,
some months ago (iirc) we had a discussion about the sip_msg structure
and the fact that it has too many header hooks, some for pretty uncommon
or not really used inside sip router code.
I spotted
- subject
- accept_language
- content_disposition
- accept_disposition
- unsupported
- organization
- diversion (expired draft?)
The list can continue a bit ... I was thinking to replace them with a
call of get_hdr_by_name|type() kind of function. The benefit will be
lower structure.
On the other hand, I would add a new field to hold the pid of the
process that received the message. There are some potential races by
using only id to identify a message, especially in serial forking.
Opinions?
I fully agree. I've tried doing this before for ser, but hit very
strong
opposition.
Regarding the pid, I was thinking on extending the
msg->id field and
include the pid or process_no there.
E.g.:
struct msgid_str{
int msg_no; /* per process */
unsigned short reserved; /* future use (e.g. extending msg_no to 48
bits */
unsigned short proc_no; /* process number, 64k should be enough */
};
union msg_id{
struct msgid_str raw;
unsigned long long id;
}
typedef uninon msg_id msg_id_t;
good solution indeed.
Daniel
3 Feb
3 Feb
5:07 a.m.
On 2/2/10 8:52 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
does not mean the support is removed. Just instead of using a special
hook for the headers I listed, a function is called to locate it, which
is iteration through headers list, compare by id or if id does not exist
by name - therefore penalty would be barely noticeable. Average number
of headers is probably 15 or less.
On the other hand, I have nothing against keeping some.
Cheers,
Daniel
- diversion (expired draft?)
yes, but very widely implemented and used.
5452
days inactive
5453
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
jh＠tutpro.com