30 Jul
2006
30 Jul
'06
10:09 p.m.
Thank you for your feedback.
I think it is to large extent matter of use-cases too. I mean where we have encountered
SOAP so far
was merely data provisioning, which was just about turning SOAP into SER's database,
something that
didn't necessiate direct support of SOAP inside SER.
I agree though that for those, who think they have a use-case, the current interface
allows for
a SOAP module easily.
-jiri
At 10:38 30/07/2006, Weiter Leiter wrote:
Just by looking at it without too much practical
experience, I would say xmlrpc module is *nice*, but no more: to me it seems to complex
for easy tasks (like usrloc operations or some counter inspecting) and too simple for
complex tasks (SOAP indeed offers much more flexibility).
On the other hand, the module API extension for RPC seems a *very* good idea and leaves
room for other protocol front ends (sercmd just as an example); maybe some work to
facilitate/'standardise' implementing such front ends might be welcomed (like
forking a number of children dedicated for the job or binding on some communication
channels aso, which would have to be done every time). I think this is what should be made
more popular and concentrate our attention on.
Although I'm a tad against web services (I haven't seen yet any big deployment
using them, so, I am skeptical), so much more against using them in SER, I would not
oppose the idea of having an official SOAP module: if for some small guy with 600+
subscribers it makes life easier, why not? However, I haven't seen any post with such
an offer...
Since we now have modules which allow use of SER as a pocket calculator, how would you
reject an enterprise *looking* like extension? :-)
WL.
On 7/29/06, Jiri Kuthan <<mailto:jiri@iptel.org>jiri@iptel.org> wrote:
I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org>serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:
serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: <mailto:serusers@iptel.org>serusers@iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan <http://iptel.org/%7Ejiri/>http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org>Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha