16 Dec
2015
16 Dec
'15
9:42 a.m.
Agreed
On 16 Dec 2015 10:36 AM, "Carsten Bock" <carsten(a)ng-voice.com> wrote:
Hi,
I agree, if the dialog_ng module is only used with IMS deployments, it
may be confusing that it's called dialog_ng (despite the original
ideas/thoughts, Richard mentioned).
I have no objections renaming it to ims_dialog; if we manage to merge
it at some point with the existing dialog-module and make the
functionality more generic, we can rename it back to dialog_ng or
similar later.
Thanks,
Carsten
2015-12-15 20:50 GMT+01:00 Richard Good <richard.good(a)smilecoms.com>om>:
Hi Daniel
As you mentioned the original reason for this module was not IMS but
rather
to support some new features, in particular
forking. It is not
particularly specific to IMS.
Unfortunately we have not managed to merge with the normal dialog module
as
we had originally intended.
I do hope at some point we manage to merge the two modules so each can
benefit for the others fixes but think it will be quite an endeavour.
Having said this I have no issue with renaming the module or explicitly
explaining in the documentation if it is causing any confusion.
Let's see if the other IMS devs agree.
Regards
Richard.
On 15 Dec 2015 2:52 PM, "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Carsten Bock
CEO (Geschäftsführer)
ng-voice GmbH
Schomburgstr. 80
D-22767 Hamburg / Germany
http://www.ng-voice.com
mailto:carsten@ng-voice.com
Office +49 40 5247593-0
Fax +49 40 5247593-99
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 120189
Geschäftsführer: Carsten Bock
Ust-ID: DE279344284
Hier finden Sie unsere handelsrechtlichen Pflichtangaben:
http://www.ng-voice.com/imprint/
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Hello,
I am under the impression that the name dialog_ng creates confusion out
there and some people are using it instead of the classic dialog module.
Although it was started with goals of reworking dialog module with a
different concept (which was discussed mainly by some guys that
afterwards changed their job to non-voip area), dialog_ng ended up to be
tailored for IMS needs.
Probably we should do that refactoring of the dialog module, but
meanwhile dialog_ng doesn't refect that and some people are confused by
the current naming of the two modules.
Practically is more about convenience at this moment and if IMS
developers and users think it is not going to be a big overhead for
their deployments to be upgraded, I can take care to rename it. So,
while general opinion matters, I think we should see first what IMS devs
prefer.
I am personally not affected that much, so I am fine to keep it like it
is now -- in that case, proper notes should be added to documentation,
stating that dialog_ng must be used only for IMS (or when the config
writer knows very well what she/he is doing).
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
http://miconda.eu
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
This email is subject to the disclaimer of Smile Communications at
http://www.smilecoms.com/home/email-disclaimer/
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev