12 Jul
2007
12 Jul
'07
8:38 a.m.
On Thursday 12 July 2007 13:49:45 Martin Hoffmann wrote:
Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
I glad that it is fine if you use tm.
But I think it should also work if you are not transaction statefull (if you
dont use tm). That is actually the problem which I wanted to solve with the
new loose_route implementation.
Nils
And what about the pre-loaded non-2xx ACKs?
I would treat them exactly the same way like the 2xx ACK. loose_route()
will consum the Route header and t_relay() then forwards it to the RURI
(which should be your proxy).
Now you made me read tm sources again. What actually happens inside tm
when you call t_relay() is that t_lookup_request() matches the
transaction the ACK belongs to, t_newtran() releases that transaction,
and t_relay_to() stops the script.
Thus, the call the loose_route() doesn't hurt, in the non-2xx case it
effectively is a no-op.
But as I explained in my other reply
to Klaus it is quite tricky to distinguish a non-2xx ACK with pre-loaded
Route, from a 2xx ACK with just one Route header. Then the only
difference is the RURI.
There is another one: For the former you have a transaction, for the
latter you don't. tm happily exploits this difference. No need to worry
in your config.