[Devel] Improving force_rtp_proxy

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Marc,

yes you get it right :)...indeed there was a c`n`p error in my example..

has_body() function can be easyly done in textops modules...maybe in the 
future we can extended to has_body(type)....I will take care of this.

the flags from request are inherited by replies of the same transaction....

regards,
bogdan

Marc Haisenko wrote:

>On Friday 03 March 2006 17:29, you wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Marc,
>>
>>just to bring the topic on the focus...
>>
>>I was thinking of a compromise solution between autodetection (which has
>>performance penalties - multiple rtpproxy command per message) and
>>configurable (to be performat and flexible, but still easy to use).
>>
>>Here is my idea:
>>
>>force_rtp_proxy() will accept a new flag "s" - swap creation with
>>confirmation (default : requests create and replies confirm).
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>As scripting:
>>
>>route {
>>    .....
>>    if (ACK and has_body() )
>>       force_rtp_proxy("s");
>>    if (INVITE) {
>>       if (has_body())
>>           force_rtp_proxy();
>>       else
>>            force_rtp_proxy();
>>    .....
>>}
>>    
>>
>
>Did you mean this instead:
>    if (INVITE) {
>       if (has_body())
>           force_rtp_proxy();
>       else
>           setflag(x)
>    }
>
>  
>
>>on_reply{
>>    if (isflagset(x))
>>        force_rtp_proxy("s");
>>    else
>>        force_rtp_proxy();
>>}
>>
>>
>>and that's all... If we agree on a solution, I would like to have this
>>fixed on CVS ASAP.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmm... so let me rephrase to check whether I've understood what you want to 
>do:
>
>INVITE/SDP + OK/SDP + ACK:
>We see an INVITE with SDP and call force_rtp_proxy just normal and do NOT set 
>a flag. In on_reply we test for that flag, don't have it set and again call 
>force_rtp_proxy the normal way.
>
>INVITE + OK/SDP + ACK/SDP:
>We see an INVITE without SDP and set a flag and DON'T call force_rtp_proxy 
>(there's no reason to, is there ?). In on_reply we see that the flag is set 
>and call force_rtp_proxy with "s". If an ACK has SDP we always call 
>force_rtp_proxy with "s".
>
>I didn't know I can set a flag which can be passed to the reply (how is the 
>REQUEST/REPLY touple called ?). This would indeed be a nice way to fix this 
>problem as it would be quite fast and reliable.
>
>So I would have to:
>
>- implement a new function "has_sdp_body" (is there already one ? after all I 
>know INVITE/OK/ACK can all have different bodies than SDP, right ?)
>- introduce a new flag (can you give me an example where flags are used so I 
>can see how to add a new one and how to use them ?)
>- introduce a new option "s" to force_rtp_proxy with simply reverts the 
>"create" variable in force_rtp_proxy2_f
>
>Did I miss something ?
>
>
>Problem is that I can't currently test/debug that stuff. Some time next week 
>we will get equipment with which we have that issue and I can then test and 
>fix the problem.
>
>C'ya,
>	Marc
>
>  
>