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
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@gmail.com wrote:
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@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
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@smilecoms.com:
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@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Agreed On 16 Dec 2015 10:36 AM, "Carsten Bock" carsten@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@smilecoms.com:
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@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-- 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@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-
Carsten Bock -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Jason Penton -
Richard Good