20 Jul
2009
20 Jul
'09
5:05 p.m.
Revision: 5904
http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
Author: miconda
Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
- proper return code check for r-uri parsing
- reported by Dubravko Caric
Modified Paths:
--------------
branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's
largest Open Source development site.
20 Jul
20 Jul
6:14 p.m.
New subject: SF.net SVN: openser:[5904] branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
what about sr modules (s and k)? Or does behave sr-core different?
klaus
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
Revision: 5904
http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
Author: miconda
Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
- proper return code check for r-uri parsing
- reported by Dubravko Caric
Modified Paths:
--------------
branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's
largest Open Source development site.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
6:23 p.m.
New subject: SF.net SVN: openser:[5904] branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
On 20.07.2009 18:14 Uhr, Klaus Darilion wrote:
what about sr modules (s and k)? Or does behave
sr-core different?
version from modules_k should be removed and modules_s/sanity
moved to
modules/. K 1.5 version was an adapted import of S version.
Daniel
klaus
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
> Revision: 5904
> http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
> Author: miconda
> Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> - proper return code check for r-uri parsing
> - reported by Dubravko Caric
>
> Modified Paths:
> --------------
> branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
>
>
> This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development
> platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/index.php/sip-router-bootcamp/
6:55 p.m.
New subject: SF.net SVN: openser:[5904] branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
On Jul 20, 2009 at 18:14, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
what about sr modules (s and k)? Or does behave
sr-core different?
It does, parse_sip_msg_uri returns 1 on success and -1 on error
(in kamailio it was changed at some point and returns 0 on success and
-1 on error).
Andrei
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
Revision: 5904
http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
Author: miconda
Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
- proper return code check for r-uri parsing
- reported by Dubravko Caric
Modified Paths:
--------------
branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform,
the world's largest Open Source development site.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
8:06 p.m.
New subject: SF.net SVN: openser:[5904] branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
On 20.07.2009 18:55 Uhr, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jul 20, 2009 at 18:14, Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
yes, it became kind of recommended rule to return 0 on success and
negative in case of error. Positive return codes only when needed to
differentiate success cases. It was pretty messy in some cases with
return codes.
I checked the other calls of parse_sip_msg_uri() in k modules and they
check for <0 to detect error, so everything should be fine.
Daniel
what about sr modules (s and k)? Or does behave
sr-core different?
It does, parse_sip_msg_uri returns 1 on success and -1 on error
(in kamailio it was changed at some point and returns 0 on success and
-1 on error).
Andrei
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/index.php/sip-router-bootcamp/
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Revision: 5904
http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
Author: miconda
Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
- proper return code check for r-uri parsing
- reported by Dubravko Caric
Modified Paths:
--------------
branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform,
the world's largest Open Source development site.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
5421
days inactive
5421
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Klaus Darilion